The Rick Perry of lore needs to show up real soon
My initial reaction last night was that Rick Perry did not have a good night.
My reaction this morning is that he had a disastrous night, possibly ending his chances of getting the nomination unless he gets his act together real soon. I say “possibly” because it only is late September, and there still is time … but if last night is the best he has, it’s just not good enough.
On appearances, Perry came across once again as ill-prepared, stumbling, and uncomfortable. I cringe at the thought of the Rick Perry from last night’s debate on stage in October 2012 against Obama with the whole country watching. I hope there is another Rick Perry out there, because last night’s Rick Perry would not stand a chance on stage against our smooth-talking, fact-misstating President.
Michelle Malkin has the video of a fumbled attempt to attack Romney. It was a set attack piece, clearly planned in advance, there was no reason to mess it up.
Perry’s answer on the Texas Dream Act was horrid. The issue was in-state tuition for children brought to the country illegally. Someone legally in the country from Arizona would pay significantly more than someone illegally in the country who resides in Texas. The issue was not whether children brought here illegally get an education through high school, or even get to go to college, it’s whether they get a discount that American children do not get. Yet here was Perry’s answer (via Weekly Standard)(emphasis mine):
“If you say that we should not educate children who come into our state for no other reason than that they’ve been brought their through no fault of their own, I don’t think you have a heart,” Perry said. “We need to be educating these children because they will become a drag on our society. I think that’s what Texans wanted to do. Out of 181 members of the Texas legislature when this issue came up [there were] only four dissenting votes. This was a state issue. Texas voted on it. And I still support it today.”
Romney correctly corrected Perry by pointing out that the issue was the discount and favoritism towards those here illegally versus Americans from other states. Perry could have defended his policy on the merits without making the “you don’t have a heart” claim. That answer was insulting and right out of the Democratic Party playbook and the type of charge we are used to hearing from Paul Krugman.
Perry’s Gardasil answer was just as bad. By now he should have a clear answer to the question, it’s come up so many times before. Yet he justified his executive order by saying he was lobbied on it by a woman with stage 4 cervical cancer. I immediately thought, hadn’t I heard someplace that he didn’t meet that woman until after the order? And sure enough, my vague memory of news reports was better than Perry’s memory on stage (via ABC News):
“I got lobbied on this issue. I got lobbied by a 31 year old young lady who had stage 4 cervical cancer,” said Perry. “I spent a lot of time with her. She came by my office She talked to me about this program. I readily admitted we should have had an opt-in but I don’t know what part of opt out most parents don’t get and the fact is I erred on the side of life and I will always err on the side of life as a governor as a president of the United States.”
The woman Rick Perry mentioned in the Republican debate Thursday was Heather Burcham, a thirty one year old woman dying from cervical cancer. But what Perry left out in his answer was that he met her after he issued his executive order.
I wanted to like Rick Perry and hoped he would be the conservative we had been hoping for. But I didn’t jump on the Perry bandwagon unlike some other conservative bloggers in part because the field was not complete and in part because I didn’t know enough about him.
I brought Katie Thompson on for guest posts over the summer to make the case for Perry and she did a good job. (Note: Katie now is a leader of Students for Perry)
I have been waiting for the Rick Perry of Katie’s posts to show up at the debates. I’m still waiting. The Rick Perry of lore needs to show up real soon.
Update: Jim Geraghty points out the negative reaction to the “don’t have a heart” comment:
According to [Frank] Luntz’s focus group [on Fox News after the debate], this line by Perry was not only his worst moment in the debate, but perhaps the worst moment any Republican has had in any debate since he started doing these debate-watching focus groups….
Hey, Governor, if we wanted to hear suggestions that folks on the Right are heartless we would have tuned in to watch a bunch of Democrats….
If Rick Perry wants to argue that allowing children of illegal immigrants to pay in-state tuition rates is better for the state, he can and should say so. But every time he suggests that those who disagree have cold-hearted or hateful motives, he alienates Republicans who might otherwise support him.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
My initial feeling when Perry announced was that he was the person I liked most. After watching the three debates so far I have to say that he has not done what he needs to do. As with Bush, I hear that in informal settings he is loose and engaging – comes across as comfortable.
He is either uncomfortable “acting” in a way that his team has told him he needs to in debates – counter to who he is or it IS Perry when the camera is on him. One can be fixed (although it better happen soon) and the other spells the end…
I too had hopes Perry would be a strong conservative candidate. The more I see, the more I think he is neither conservative nor strong. So, at this point, I am in the “anyone but Obama” mode, and whoever has the best chance of winning is who I’ll support. Paul and Huntsman would be difficult to support, but even they would be better than Obama, not that either has a chance.
Quite agreed, Professor. Last night, the only candidate who really moved the meter in a positive direction for me was Herman Cain. Gov. Perry didn’t look at all strong up there. Is there an opening for one more candidate to get into the fray? Right now, I’m thinking yes.
I agree Cain was on fire. Besides Ron Paul, who is a bit too far out there on some issues for many people, he is the only other candidate that really seems to have intelligence and understanding of the issues he is talking about, not just blowing hot air. Well maybe Newt to, I just think Newts time may be up, but maybe not. Gary Johnson is a smart guy too, but he just kind of seems ignored.
For a month (or so) the Republican nomination appeared to be Gov Perry’s to lose. Now it’s just about gone.
Regarding the Texas tuition matter: “He who is not a liberal at the age of twenty has no heart; he who is not a conservative at the age of forty has no head”.
I HAD BEEN A SUPPORTER BUT NOW…. MAYBE NOT.
MITT WAS GOOD.
FOLKS NEED TO REMEMBER THAT MITT RAN TO THE RIGHT OF MCCAIN AND HASN’T BACKTRACKED ONE BIT.
HE IS BETTER ON WW4 AND IMMIGRATION THAN PERRY – AND MUCH BETTER IN DEBATES – AND MAYBE WITH NONINDEPENDENTS.
ALSO REMEMBER THAT HE TOOK ON TEDDY KENNEDY.
HE IS ON OUR SIDE.
I COULD SUPPORT HIM.
While Romney ran to the right of McCain, whose record was move visable, Romney governed to the left of most Republicans.
He was for abortion before he was against it. He could have worked to block same-sex marriages in Massachussets, but he did not. He raised taxes using stealth “fees” to do it. He implemented Romneycare which has increased his state’s debt, caused doctors to refuse to accept the state plan reducing availability to the citizens of Massachussets, caused the health care premiums to be the highest in the nation. Romneycare is only sustainable due to a huge influx of money from the Stimulus Bill. Do you not wonder why Romney runs as a “business man” and not on his governing in Massachussets?
Look at the candidate’s records, not on their debating abilities.
The people here who criticize Perry do so because of his record, one component of which is what he says in debates. That record includes the Texas Dream Act and accusing those who oppose it of being racist and heartless. It also includes the Gardasil EO, his willingness to use cervical cancer victims to demagogue the issue when he was forced to rescind it, and now falsely blaming the 31 year old cervical cancer victim for “lobbying” him on the issue.
Ummm, he DID work to block same-sex marriage in Massachusetts. Where’s this narrative coming from that he didn’t? When the MA Supreme Court said same-sex marriage was constitutional there, Romney started work to amend the MA Constitution to make it unconstitutional. When the legislature tried to stonewall his efforts, he actually got the SC to unanimously order the legislature to allow a vote on it. There was literally nothing else he could do to stop it.
The “heart” statement cost Perry the nomination, mark my words. A bunch of good Americans, who would prefer their tax dollars be directed to Americans, were insulted in one fell swoop. At that point, I think the “anybody but Romney” crowd began reconsidering other candidates — and, perhaps, are reconsidering their strong positions on Romney.
At this point, put me in the “anybody but Huntsman” camp, and I hope we get a couple of new contenders shortly.
I have some issues with Romney, but I would support him if it came down to it.
I will support whoever gets the Republican nomination – ABO is my personal mantra.
On a related note, I believe this debate reveals why Palin has delayed announcing – assuming she does. Now the field has had some public vetting, and the “awesome Texas governor” is proving to be less than awesome, after all. Romney pulling out in front? Hmmm……
Romney has the debate skills, but too many issues that would put the odd on Obama (yes, RomneyCare in particular). Perry and the book battle points, along with SS and other jobs-related issues made some good hits, but the fail lines you mentioned erase any gains.
Michele Bachmann struggled to stay relevant, and her Gardasil issue is exhausted, by now – even though Perry handled that poorly; Huntsman had some good lines, but was weak; Paul – enough said; Newt is such an excellent debater – but his time is not now; Santorum came across as too angry, unfortunately; Cain made great strides, and excellent points – so he is gaining,IMHO; Gary Johnson had a few positive points, but lost it, IMHO, when he said Paul would be his running mate…….a Paulite we don’t need.
So, the spot for frontrunner appears to be wide open again.
A Palin announcement would quickly take all the oxygen out of the candidates, IMHO.
Timing is everything.
I agree about Palin. She may be waiting to see how things unfold and who she’s going to be up against.
Any opinion on Gary Johnson?
When the Lincoln-Douglas debates happened in 1858, no one thought that Lincoln had won those debates. Douglas was thought to be the best debated of his time. Yet, history had a different story to tell. Now Lincoln is viewed as one of the two best presidents of our history. And the Lincoln-Douglas debates are used as a reference point in every debate class in our American schools.
These debates are boring. Each candidate is alloted a minute to disguss major issues. And then a 30 secord rebuttal. How do you discuss the problems of the Middle East in a minute and a half? How do you resolve our economic woes in such a short time?
Are we now a nation whose attention span is limited to 90 second talking points? Isn’t that why we now have the president we have that has been such a disaster?
Every candidate on that stage last night has a political record. Are we not looking at those records and picking and choosing because of their comfort on stage and their history of participating in debates?
There are two main issues in this presidental race: jobs, and taxes. In 2006, the Cato Institute created a list of the most fiscally reponsible governors in all 50 states.
Matt Blunt (D-Mo) came in first.
Rick Perry (R-Tx) second.
And where was Mitt Romney who was in his third year as governor? #12, following Democrats Phil Brasden (TN); John Lynch (NH); Bill Richardson (NM) and Tom Vilsack (IA). How big a spender do you have to be to be beat out by Bill Richardson?
What about judges? The next POTUS will surely appoint one, perhaps two, SCOTUS justices. What is their record on appointing judges to the state benches? What did these candidates do to move their state into the GOP column? What about social issues? How do they stand on those issues like being pro-life, one man-one woman marriage defense, lower taxation for their state’s residents, smaller government?
There is much more to “Life, Liberty and pursuit of Happiness’ than just ‘jobs and taxes’.
GWB gave us ‘jobs and taxes’ and in return he is hated more than Obama.
Obama gave us ‘government jobs and tax the riches’ and he is almost hated as much as GWB.
Rather than America being about ‘gimee a jobs and keep my taxes low BUT gimee all the same entitled government services’, why can’t America be about ‘ethics and integrity’ or ‘American Exceptionalism and Entreprenurial spirit’ or ‘Rule of Law and Rights of Man’ or ‘Constitutional Republic and Individual Autonomy?
PS: half the country does not pay Federal tax. What do these non-taxers care about a campaign based on taxes?
This is an inaccurate sentence in your post:
“Romney correctly corrected Perry by pointing out that the issue was the discount and favoritism towards those here illegally versus Americans from other states.”
It was Rick Santorum, not Romney, who corrected Perry.
I cringed and had much the same reaction as many of the people in the focus group at the “heartless” comment. Geez, defend the policy. Don’t attack those who have a different opinion about whether it’s good policy or not.
I REALLY wanted him to be the guy based on speeches he has given at Tea Party events and the premise of his book. But after three lackluster debates, I think he’s irreparably damaged goods. With Bachmann and Perry floundering, I wonder if a door has opened for Chris Christie, Palin, or someone else to jump in.
Disgusted me when he went for the childish fallacy of attacking those who disagree with him…but is that any kind of a shock at all? Look at his behavior after his executive order was overridden, for example. I’m pretty sure that’s not the only case of him behaving like this, I’ve just read more news stories about it.
We don’t need another RINO like Christie – although it would make Coulter extremely happy.
So Perry stunk in the debate. Mitt “Mr. Slick” was typically slick. On in-state tuition for illegals I hated Perry’s answer, but before you kill off Perry remember this: The Texas legislature had passed the Texas Dream Act with a veto-proof majority. Perry’s veto would have been overturned had he wanted to use it, which would have weakened his overall position with the Republican-led legislature. I still don’t agree with in-state tuition for illegals,but Perry is correct, they do actually get welfare (no-one ever asks if you are here legally when handing out Federally mandated Medic-aid or welfare checks. I work in healthcare and have to deal with these DADT rules on illegals getting routine healthcare and welfare (daycare, headstart, housing assistance, WIC)on a daily basis. So, we realize in Texas that if we don’t educate them, they too will be on welfare and Texas assistance for the rest of their days. Before you throw Perry under the bus, for trying to fix a problem in Texas that the Feds have ignored ad-nauseum remember what your savior Mitt has given the US already:
Romney was for Romneycare before he was against Obamacare.
Romneycare was the basis for Obamacare.
Romney supported Obama’s race to the top education plan.
Romney was against charter schools before he was for them.
Romney was for Roe v. Wade before he was against it.
Romney was for gay marriage before he was against it.
Romney signed gay marriage into law in the first U.S. state.
Perry is not a good debater, he has not had 4 years to get packaged like Mitt, and has to improve, but Romney has the perfect answer to every question depending what answer you want. Can you trust Slick Willy 2? Romney is the establishment RINO, are you ready for more grand-bargains to raise taxes with the Dems in 2012 and beyond, including raised taxes on those making over $200,000 a year? Then go ahead vote Romney my friends. He will ruin the Republican brand and we will get a Dem wave in 2016. I held my nose and voted for Hilary in operation chaos last-time, because the North-east libs had decided the nominee before the primaries ever got to Texas. I will not hold my nose and vote for another North-east lib this time. Finally, for those of you hoping that Sarah Palin will get in to save you, the MSM will do the same hatchet job on her as they are currently doing on Perry. No more compromise.
“Sarah Palin will get in to save you, the MSM will do the same hatchet job on her as they are currently doing on Perry. No more compromise.”
“WILL do the same hatchet job on her”?
I take it that for the last three years you have been on a remote desert island without any connection to the world?
To help you get up to speed, the MSM relentlessly tried their hatchet job for three years and they failed to strike her down. Because she never compromised.
If she gets into the race, the last three years will look like child’s play.
Despite the truth in what you say, the overriding factor is who has the best chance against Obama. Right now, I’d say that is Romney, but it certainly could change. Right now, it doesn’t seem that Palin would have much of a chance against Obama.
I’m still in the Perry camp, but I’m not going to pretend he had a good night last night. I can vote for Mitt if I have to, but honestly, I don’t believe a word he says. No one else on the stage can get elected, and that’s priority number one. I’ve gone from thinking Palin won’t run to being pretty sure she will. But she won’t get the nomination for the same reason Santorum and Newt won’t–republicans simply aren’t going to hand the most vulnerable incumbent in a generation a second term by nominating someone who they don’t believe can win. I think a lot of people are in for a rude awakening at how little support she actually garners once she’s in the race, and what there is will be taken from Santorum, Bachmann, and Cain.
You may very well be right, which raises the question: why should a conservative support the Republican party? As Jeff Goldstein says, “Losing more slowly is still losing.”
Because a third party movement, even if its eventually successful, will simply give liberals utter dominance in national politics for at least 2 election cycles. And I don’t think the country can survive that in this day and age.
Whether they like it or not, the future of conservatism lies within the republican party. TEA Partiers have made big inroads into leadership positions and influence, but it takes more than two years to overthrow a long sitting establishment. There’s a lot of allure and illusions of glory in the third party notion. Its easy to be seduced by it with visions of some meteoric rise to national dominance. It ain’t going to happen. Look how long it took for the Republican Party to get off the ground, and that was in the most politically divisive, downright revolutionary, moment in our history since the founding. Things are rough now, but nothing compared to the 1850s. And who would we build this party around? I know a lot of people think Sarah Palin can do it, but she can’t. Whatever virtues she might possess, she is not a Jackson, she isn’t even a Fremont. She is simply incapable to unite a majority, or even plurality, of Americans under any banner. She’s been treated unfairly, no doubt, but the damage is done and it won’t ever be undone.
No, we have to do the long, boring, grueling task of taking over the party from within. We’ve got a long way to go, but we’ve already made surprising inroads. Look at those freshman in the House and Senate and tell me otherwise. Us conservatives simply have to stiffen our necks, put our heads down, lean into it, and press on. There is no short term alternative, and the all the long term ones can’t be accomplished before the nation we love is wrecked.
You are spot on. And, along the way, we have to educate the electorate, or at least a majority of it, that a government built on conservative principles will be best for everyone.
A few thoughts:
1. After watching the last couple of debates, I can’t figure out why there’s any friction between Perry and GWB. Perry seems like a disciple of Bush’s “compassionate” conservatism, and I don’t mean that as a compliment to either man.
2. When Perry gets called on some position he took as governor, he falls back on the argument that, well, “states can do what they want and that’s what we did in Texas.” Although it’s good that he believes in federalism, it doesn’t really answer the concern that his position in Texas (be it in-state tuition or Gardasil) seems to reveal some liberal impulses. Whether or not those policy choices are confined to Texas, Republicans want to nominate a genuine conservative, not a liberal who believes in federalism.
3. Perry evidently came into the race figuring he had the nomination sewn up, and therefore it was safe to move to middle in preparation for the general election. Bad move.
4. I’d be all for Romney if he just admitted Romneycare was a big mistake. He defends it on the basis that it’s very different from Obamacare. (a) It’s not that different. and (b) Even if it were very different, it’s STILL A LOUSY PIECE OF LEGISLATION that’s driving up HC costs in Massachusetts. IOW, while he’s defending Romneycare as “NOT Obamacare,” he doesn’t — and cannot — defend it on its practical merits.
5. I’d still vote for Romney, however, because he’s good on just about everything else, and he’s a much better candidate now, having been running for all these years, than he was in 2008.
6. I wish Santorum could win, because he seems to both make the most sense and sound the most sincere. Even Cain, whom I like, sounds a little programmed to me compared to Santorum.
I really don’t care that much for Romney, but I’ll support him if he looks like he is the strongest one to face Obama, and that seems to be the case right now. I think he’s a slick politician who will say or do whatever he thinks will promote his political interests. That’s the source of the flips and flops. Bill Clinton of the Republican party seems like a pretty good description.
You’re wrong about Perry. He knew he would be the pinata in the race. The left leaning press started attacking him before he even threw his hat into the ring.
He is getting beat up on because he has been the front runner. Romney’s turn will come if he takes the lead. You can then look for the rest of the herd to point to Romney’s judicial nominations, his record on Romneycare, his stealth increase in taxes calling them “fees”, his endorsement from the Log Cabin Republicans because he supported gay men being Boy Scout leaders.
So which Romney will you vote for? The one who was a left leaning governor of Massachussets or the man who proclaimed himself center of the road in 2008 trying to appear more conservative than John McCain.
And I would like to know, did you vote for McCain?
Lots of emotions here in these comments but I have to agree with the Professor’s words “I wanted to like Rick Perry and hoped he would be the conservative we had been hoping for” and I will vote for him or anyone but Obama, but like many others I continue to hope that Sarah jumps into the race.
Then can we assume that you would not have voted for Abraham Lincoln since his debate skills were consideres substandard?
Once again, it is Perry’s record and the way he defends it in debate that people question.
The continued references to Lincoln-Douglas are specious.
I do indeed have a heart, and my heart will NOT be voting for Perry even though I had high hopes for him.
Like many others, I’m in the ABO camp. Who ever gets the nomination will get my vote.
The Boston Globe reported that although Romney had the opportunity to nominate conservatives to the judicial benches in Massachussets, 75% of the lawyers he nominated were liberals. In two years, 2004 and 2005, Romney nominated 14 Democrats, 12 Unenrolled and 7 Republicans, including two gay lawyers who supported same sex marriage.
In 2006, the Cato Institute reported that on fiscal soundness, Matt Blunt (R-M0) ranked #2, with Rick Perry ranking #2. Mitt Romney, then in the third year of his governship, ranked #12 behind Democrats Phil Bresden (TN); John Lynch (NH); Bill Richardson (NM) and Tom Vilsack (IA). Tim Pawlenty ranked below all of the above. Look at what Romneycare has done to the financial numbers of Massachussets with its current Debt to GDP of over 25% and per citizen public state debt of over $14,000 (that is for every man, woman and child in Massachussets).
Do not be fooled by Slick Mitt’s ability to debate talking points. Look at his record. Look at his record of pandering to the left while trying to deny his record in the last presidential election.
God, people, are you not yet tired of having someone who can talk the talk but doesn’t walk the walk?
Perry’s Garidsil answer is soem of the worst narrative abuse I’ve ever seen. Set aside the obvious lie pointed out in this post that he met the girl after he signed the order. Even if he had met her before, would it have mattered? No, because nothing would have prevented her from getting the vaccine in the State of Texas (other than the fact it hadn’t been invented when she got cancer of course.)
If Perry’s program had been designed merely to expand voluntary access the the vaccine he MIGHT (big emphasis there) MIGHT have a leg to stand on, but that’s not whe he chose. He chose a governmental Mandate. No matter how easy that was to do, there was no need to do that. In fact the advisory board that reported to him also stated there was no need to do that. So he goes against the advice of his advisors to set up a government coercion for a vaccine that may or may not be useful to people? (Unlike a vaccine for a contagious as opposed to merely transmitted disease). Some Conservative cred he’s got there.
Is lock jaw a communicable disease? No. Yet almost every school in the nation requires students to be vaccinated with a tetanus shot. How about Heptitus B? How is that ususally contracted? Sexual activity. Yet, Bachmann’s own state mandates (requires) students be vaccinated against Hepitutus B, as does many states.
Perhaps you can tell me what actions Bachmann took as a state representative to overturn the tetanus and Hep B vaccination requirements? I really want to know.
The opt-out form was going to be so easily obtained it would be available on line. I guess you think Texas parents are so stupid they don’t use the internet or know that they have the option of “consciencious objection” when it is explained to them by the school personell?
We have 14 million Americans out of work and you are worried that Texas parents are so stupid they don’t know the rules and regulations? What an insult toward Texans.
Your statement that hepatitis B is usually contracted by sexual activity is false. It is contracted by any exchange of body fluids, including but not limited to sexual activity. This is why many drug users get it, as they are prone to reusing dirty needles. I got Hepatitis B from unclean silverware at a restaurant. Yes, it was a dump and I should have known better, but I did not get it from sexual activity.
All in all, after finally being able to watch my first debate, I have to say it was extremely disappointing.
Do these candidates not practice answering obvious and likely questions of common topics and dozens of similar iterations for each one?
My God, can’t they at the very least have a “Politics” folder in their “Favorites” on their computers with subfolders on topics from A to Z filled with commentary from leading conservatives and parrot those arguments if need be?
Perry’s “answer” on the 3 a.m. call about a coup in Pakistan resulting in nuclear weapons in the hands of the Taliban was absolutely incoherent. He couldn’t have foreseen that question? My God.
I sat in front of the TV expecting to watch a professional league game … and it was like watching “The Bad News Bears.”
Right now I’d go with Mitt and would like to see Cain or Rubio or Jindal as a running mate.
LukeHandCool (who enjoyed the movie “Bad News Bears”)
I agree with everything you said, Professor, and I am glad you said it. I’ve been a Perry supporter but last night left me wondering who this guy is. Why by the third debate wasn’t he prepared?! Does he think he doesn’t need to prepare or explain because he is not changing his position? Does he prepare and is not able to explain himself under pressure? Will he but forth his best for our country if he can’t even seem do so for a debate?
The other thought I had is, “Can he think about what his positions will mean for all Americans, not just Texans?” Last night he seemed genuinely taken aback that people from other states might not feel that Texas was being fair to American kids from other states with regards to in-state tuition for illegal children. The fact that he didn’t get that was troublesome.
I won’t rule Perry out yet, but he needs a heavy dose of political clarity here soon, AND, to show up prepared and ready to explain himself in the next round of debates.
“The other thought I had is, “Can he think about what his positions will mean for all Americans, not just Texans?” Last night he seemed genuinely taken aback that people from other states might not feel that Texas was being fair to American kids from other states with regards to in-state tuition for illegal children. The fact that he didn’t get that was troublesome.”
Perry was genuinely taken aback because it is irrelevant. Mitt and Santorum hyped it as emotional rhetoric.
Perry is saying that states should solve their own problems as much as possible. Local Goverment and Limited federal government meddling while Mitt and Santorum are using one size fits all approaches that ensure the status quo.
It’s like Santorum insisting on a border fence over all of the border while ignoring the Rio Grande river which encompasses the Texas Border….Which is most of the border.
Oh. Wow. I’m just bummed out.
To Syn: I did not mean that Sarah palin has not been attacked for the pst three years. I meant that you have not seen anything like the knives that will come out anew if she announces.” No more compromise”, was not a slight against Sarah, I meant no more North-east RINOs. I know you know, this does not mean Sarah in any,way,shape or form. So, sorry if my intentions on that score were not clear. I was attempting to show that the Republican establishment as well as the Libs and MSM are against ANY Conservative and will only work to see their chosen nominee e.g. Mitt romney get the nomination. I am not against Palin, never have been, I admire her. I want to know where Palin supporters intend to go if she does not enter the race? Do you have a second choice?
Presuming that Palin has decided to run and is timing her entrance opportunistically, I think that the fratricidal goings on in this debate might just have swung the door wide open.
After all, she said that one of her criteria was that if no one stepped up and embraced conservative principles that she would strongly consider running.
Taken together with the fact that she and Perry are good friends, she may have decided to sit back for a bit to see if he gained traction. His initial bite on the asphalt has given way to spinning tires.
Also, as events unfold, take note of the strong similarities between Palin’s rise to the corner office in AK and the events of today – criminal corruption by the present chief executive, a resignation that everyone thought was a career killer, squabbling candidates with Palin distancing herself only to hurl a hand grenade at the end. It is 2004 writ large.
Interesting, to say the least!
I was thinking along the same lines.
People don’t seem to be realizing that these candidates are simply having a civil war against each other on camera. They are making a huge mistake here: they’re not focusing all of their strength and efforts on defeating The One Enemy – Obama.
The Next President of the United States… was not in that debate last night.
Prof. Jacobson. You’ve summed up exactly how I’ve felt all along. Thank you. Given the broader electorate, the nominee whoever he or she is must have requisite speaking skills and the “presence” on that stage next fall. As I wondered on my blog at http://ingeneralcounsel.blogspot.com/, who’s had the most unfortunate week…Netflix or Rick Perry?
Just for some background, the Texas law allows any person (illegal immigrant, legal immigrant, or permanent resident/citizen) to qualify for in-state tuition rates if they have resided in Texas with at least 1 parent, and attended a Texas high school for the 3 consecutive years prior to graduation. If they are not a citizen, they are required to sign an affidavit stating that they will apply for citizenship within a certain amount of time after they turn 18 to receive or continue to receive in-state rates. This law was passed by the Democrat-controlled legislature and signed by Perry in 2001. Thirteen states have similar laws. As far as affected students in Texas, it’s nominal. Students who took advantage of this law represent less than one percent of the public institution enrollment per year. Hispanics have the poorest educational rates in terms of high school dropouts, graduation, etc. , and they tend to become generationally more dependent on government services according to the Center for Immigration Studies. Several studies have found that immigrants — both legal and undocumented — with a college education save the government money, while those with just a high school diploma consume more in services than they contribute in taxes. A Roger Williams University study found that states that offer in-state rates come out slightly ahead financially, that most illegal immigrants would not go to college if required to pay significantly higher out-of-state rates, and that States that allow illegal immigrants to pay cheaper, in-state tuition have seen a 31-percent jump in that population’s college-going rate and a 14-percent decline in high-school dropouts among undocumented Latino students.
In 1990, Texas was 60% Anglo, 25% Hispanic. Today, it is 47% Anglo, 39% Hispanic. It is now expected to be majority Hispanic by 2017. Hispanics lag in voting #s, so Hispanic voters won’t immediately outnumber the # of other voters in 2017, but it’s soon to follow. Given the lack of desire from the federal government to secure the borders, and the high birthrates of Latinos, other states are likely to see similar demographic changes in the near future. Anglos make up the majority of the GOP vote in Texas, while Democrats take the Hispanic vote. Due to the changing demographics, you can clearly see that Republicans must begin reaching out to Hispanics if they are going to remain a viable party in this state. Moveon.org and several other liberal Democrat groups have targeted Texas as a state they believe they can turn blue due to the largely undereducated and poor Hispanic population. These groups are therefore pumping tons of money into Hispanic get-out-the-vote efforts . If they’re successful, that means they have the opportunity to secure Texas’ 38 electoral college votes, on top of already having secured CA’s 55, and NY’s 29. That doesn’t bode well for the GOP’s future Presidential prospects. Perry usually does a pretty good job reminding Latinos of the common values they and the GOP hold in his speeches. He consistently emphasizes self-sufficiency, hard work, education family, fiscal responsibility, and yes, even border security when he speaks to Hispanic groups, be they La Raza or the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce. Some may see the in-state tuition issue as political pandering, and it is to a degree, but there are also economic reasons behind it. I will say, however, that I almost puked when he said that anyone who disagrees “doesn’t have a heart.” And agreed, he’s doing very poorly in these debates.
Political Perry-cide. That guy is done.
The Rick Perry of Lore is the campaigner. Perry has never been a polished debater…But he gets his message across & he does this in multiple ways. Perry’s strengths are people to people and he’s better in one on one interviews and giving speeches & talking to voters.
He is always plain spoken and not a flashy wonk for pundits….and comes across as largely a straight shooter.His on the fly zingers are strategic and play to his strengths which is for ordinary people to see he is talking to them not down to them. Perry won’t dazzle with BS.
Today he said in a speech ” Don’t elect a smooth debater”
These types of zingers settle into the minds of the voters in Texas and may well do that nationally. They are dense with meaning….some are almost West Texas zen
They work because they are simple and common sense & blunt. Mitt Romney and most of the other debaters are more polished than Perry at debating…but debating is only a part of deciding & Obama is as smooth as Mitt.
Perry treats the voters as if they know better & they usually do.
Last night Perry achieved 4 things.
1. He exposed in a clumsy way Mitt as a flip-flopper. Mitt sputtered.
2. He made Santorum look like an ass.
3. He split the Latino vote as this is the only issue that democrats use to unite that block by turning it into an ethnic issue when Latin feel attacked over Immigration while Perry played to the #1 concern of Latinos which is education. Every other candidate but Perry, Newt, and Cain seemed willing to undercut GOP strategy to win points with a failed tactic that turned California Blue.
Seriously does Santorum think 1.9 million Latinos in the military will vote for him now?
Geraldo Rivera was defending Perry on TV so were Texas Tejano Democrats.
4. Perry reminded the GOP that Texas is the new California and it is a conservative state…But Perry might make inroads to turning California purple not by pandering but using conservative principles. This is why a democrat can’t beat Perry in Texas because Perry appeals to common conservative concerns of Texans. Reagan’s Latinos will like that more than you think.
Perry isn’t Reagan but he has a secret weapon that Reagan had…He gets Democrats because he used to be a bluedog and he knows how to win independents…Not by pretending to be moderate like Romney does but by making them want the same things conservatives want like Reagan did & his actions demonstrate it in his record.
As a Texan I’m kinda having fun watching the whole thing.
On Hannity radio today Perry nailed it on a border fence as opposed to Boots on the Ground.
” An unmanned obstacle is not an obstacle ”
That is short and to the point. He explained the reality of the geography that Santorum is ignorant about but Texans, Arizonans, New Mexicanos know as fact…hundred of miles of terrain and wilderness with few cities or towns between.
Texans know he’ll secure the border…so does Sandoval & the other border governors. It will be his priority. It is the horse in front of the cart which is immigration.
Florida has it’s own version of in-state tuition…I wonder if Mitt knows that?
I would like to know how many who have posted here bashing Perry because a) he is not a great debater and b) because the Texas legislation passed a veto proof law giving in-state tuition to the children of illegals would answer these questions:
1) how many of those children (an approx 16,000 this year out of a student population of almost 5 million) are in fact considered, by current law, to be legal citizens because they are anchor babies? If you have the answer to that, please, provide a link.
2) how many of these illegal parents own homes in Texas, paying school taxes on those homes? Homes they were allowed to purchase because Bill Clinton and Barney Frank’s former boy friend wrote new rules to the Community Reinvestment Act that allowed ACORN and La Raza to approve mortgage loans that banks were required to give to those illegals?
3) how does the Hispanic graduation rate in Texas compare to California with its 5 million illegals? What percentage of college graduates are joining gangs and are engaged in criminal activities?
4) how many illegal children are being deported after finishing high school and college when they apply for citizenship?
5) how many of the people in that Florida audience do you think were Cuban Americans whose parents really came here illegally but were given the “wet foot, dry foot” rule because Cuba is Communist nation?
6) how many of you live in states that have passed Voter I.D. laws like Perry lobbied for, and got, in Texas?
7) What other border state has spent anything near $400 million using state police personell, state drones, and state resources to protect the border. I would be interested in knowing what California, Arizona and New Mexico have done when it comes to putting their crack state troopers on the border or how much they have spend on border control.
8) What was the first state to join with Arizona in its fight against the feds over Arizona’s SB 1070?
9) how many of you voted for John McCain?
I guess Texas isn’t conservative enough…yet again.
It’s up to America…And Perry is right they can elect a smooth debater or a conservative problem solver with a proven record.
Texans just kinda shake their heads it’s so stupid.
Well, if Romney, who appointed nominated two gay, same-sex marriage supporting lawyers for the bench gets the nomination, they can thank themselves for another four years of Obama Oppression.
“Rick Perry of lore needs to show up real soon.”
You people (y’all that is) need to get a grip real soon. Just in case some need reminding, the year is actually 2011.
Stop feeding your silly addiction – in the end, it makes you look very stupid, you will be ashamed, and it is no fun to have people constantly pointing at you and laughing and whispering’ “You remember him/her — s/he’s the one who said … more than YEAR before the election!”