September 27, 2011

"Rick Perry just never does well in debates. He never has. He doesn't win debates, but, boy, does he win elections!"

The standard spin for Rick Perry, as articulated by Rush Limbaugh, who goes on to analyze it this way:
Okay, look, I totally understand spin, but these are not "debates." This is just Q&A. You gotta have some facts at your command, you have to be able to parry (p-a-r-r-y), have to be able to go back and forth, but if you're gonna go out and try to illustrate Romney's flip-flops, rehearse it, or know it. I don't know about you; I just thought it was a little disappointing. And, in fact, I made an observation about Perry last week where he seems to get tired, seems to wear down. The sentences get slower, the words get put together slower. In fact, the Perry campaign has said that it was a product of being tired in these debates.  In fact, last Thursday, this is in Orlando, here is Perry responding to Romney's defense of Romneycare.
I think Americans just don't know sometimes which Mitt Romney they're dealing with.  Is it the Mitt Romney that was on the side against the Second Amendment before he was for the Second Amendment?  Was it was before he was for these social programs from the standpoint he was standing up for Roe v. Wade before he was against Roe v. Wade?  He was for Race to the Top. He's for Obamacare and now he's against it.  I mean we'll wait until tomorrow and see which Mitt Romney we're really talking to tonight.
So they said, "Ah, he was just tired. He had a long day out there, long day of fundraising, long day of campaigning, a bunch of speechifying, and just a little tired out there."  And I'll tell you why this matters.  It's because within the conservative base, call it the Tea Party base, what have you, they just do not want Romney.  There is an active anti-Romney sentiment and Perry represented perhaps somebody that could wrest all this away from Romney.  Romney's the presumptive nominee, based on money and media trying to make this into a two-man race and so forth, it's getting late for anybody else to get in.
In other words, these excuses for Perry are delusion and desperation. But what do you do at that point if you think Romney's not the solid, principled conservative you want? You should hope for Chris Christie to come in. It's not that Christie is the conservative, but that Christie is the one who can draw support from Romney. That would help Perry, Limbaugh predicts.

Help him how far? If Christie comes in and attracts all the attention, Rick Bad-at-Debates Perry will get to relax into his quiet, manly persona. He can conserve his scarce enegy while Christie and Romney compete for the moderate crowd, and then saunter into the nomination without looking relatively fresh. But then what? He'll have to debate Obama! I'm getting flashbacks to 2008. It looked like a little something like this:



Care to live through that with the man whose supporters assure you just never does well in debates?

92 comments:

Chris said...

Perry is losing support over his kindness toward illegal aliens. That is not allowed in the current GOP.

Bender said...

Seriously though, how many debates is a president in each day in the Oval Office?

How is some gimmicked-up exercise of gotcha and instant soundbites a better indicator of how someone will govern as opposed to what he or she has actually done while in office?

How does one's ability to give a snap answer to sometimes some difficult issues, rather than taking the time to reflect on it and give a thought-out answer, make him or her a better president?

At least 95 percent of the presidental debates that have been held since 1960 have been made-for-TV farces. The original reality-TV I suppose.

Jane said...

No.

The only viable candidate now is Herman Cain.

Nate Silver pointed put a few months ago that when Mr. Cain gets recognized, he's a voter enthusiast magnet.

Pastafarian said...

Care to live through what? Some amateurish snarky shit cobbling together a waste of two minutes of my life?

I'm pretty sure we'll get plenty of that with any of these Republican candidates; just with less age-ism.

Thank goodness we got the best debater in 2008. We really dodged a bullet there, boy.

traditionalguy said...

Perry has come across 99% Conservative and 1% good heartedly pragmatic man on innoculations and education.

How dare he affront Romney and Bachmann who want the nomination so badly that they promise to overrule evil Texas laws and to stop the rape of innocent 12 year old girls by evil men in raincoats like Perry.

If Rush wants to hear Othello's voice hitting all the right notes, then Cain is right there.

But please don't make the habitual false accuser Bachmann or the habitual arrogant Shape Shifter Romney the nominee.

EDH said...

But what do you do at that point if you think Romney's not the solid, principled conservative you want?

Focus on congressional races, as Instapundit links to Lexington Green at Chicago Boyz. Makes sense if you worry Mitt is a go-along, get along type of guy.

I am thinking more and more that the GOP presidential candidate is a distraction.

Whoever it is will be better much than Mr. Obama, so don’t worry about it. Mr. Obama makes Mitt Romney look like George Washington.

So, what does matter?

Making sure we have a Tea Party Congress in 2012 is the most important thing.

MadisonMan said...

If my candidate doesn't do well in debates, then debates don't matter.

MayBee said...

It all gets very complicated when we consider what makes a great candidate is not what makes a great (or even good) president.

Mark O said...

I think Perry is a mere excrescence on the GOP body politic and he will fall away. It is odd, however, that he can’t hit batting practice pitching. That’s not a good think for a President. But, were I his writers, I would say something like this: “ Last time we elected the president based on nothing more than his ability to read a teleprompter. This time, let’s focus on substance.”

Carol_Herman said...

Sure. Debates are a waste of time.

Texas doesn't stand another chance, winning a national contest! And, "Jim" Perry has BAGGAGE! Hint. Hint. Hint.

Then, if the ticket gets Mittens, yesterday a poster put up that the ticket could be: "Strange underwear Man, and the Pizza Guy."

The elite republicans, who run the party, actually have a "base problem."

Once, for the democraps, their base problem was the South. So LBJ said, fuck the south. And, ran at getting The East, The Northern Middle. And, the West.

Can't win with just a bible belt, either.

The "controlling interest" is that the race is composed, now of many ethnics. Including Hispanics.

And, sometimes?

The republicans will take over local states; but that's not where the money is. The money is in the hands of a few who wield power.

Big time change coming to Europe, first! Right now Obama is just staying outside the debris path.

And, so far, not one of those midgets, running to appease the religious base has mentioned anything about what's going on in Europe. Or Libya. As a matter of fact.

Why not? There are no "facts on the ground" yet ... The "science isn't settled."

Scott M said...

If he can't rip out POTUS' rhetorical jugular during the inevitable two or three DEM/GOP presidential debates, I've got little use for him. Granted the margin seems to get bigger steadily, but we're already at a very slim margin for error.

Scott M said...

Perry is losing support over his kindness toward illegal aliens. That is not allowed in the current GOP.

Do you honestly think it would be outside the realm of acceptable to charge illegal alien student out of state tuition? That's the only middle ground I see...but apparently that's too racist.

edutcher said...

What Jane said.

Apparently, TX politics is speeches and pressing the flesh; you don't have to do a lot to justify your point of view.

That's what's killing Perry and it makes Dubya's inability to defend himself when the Lefty lies about Iraq and Katrina started a lot more understandable.

Nationally, of course, it's different and, if Perry can't articulate his positions, he's done. Conservatives don't want another Dubya who will be a lead-in for another GodZero.

Chris said...

Perry is losing support over his kindness toward illegal aliens. That is not allowed in the current GOP.

Considering people are being murdered on the border, including ones who try to show "kindness" to the illegals (and does Chris favor showing "kindness" to the savages in the Zetas and the other drug cartels operating on the border?), not to mention it's a proven method of infiltration for Moslem crazies, getting control of the border is a necessity.

Perry's positions on immigration are pretty good, but he hasn't articulated them at all well and has done a lousy job of refuting the arguments of Milton, in particular.

Falling back on a Lefty guilt trip, instead of making note that in-state tuition only awards money to 1% of those who are eligible was a sure loser.

Kirby Olson said...

Aristotle said that a good leader should have three qualities if they wish to be credible: virtue, disinterest, and practical wisdom.

Perry has come off as a demagogue, throwing in answers that help him gain instant traction. This reveals a lack of natural virtue.

He's not disinterested, either. He has admitted to being able to be lobbied.

In terms of practical wisdom: he may have that. But Cain has more of it, and Romney has also been a business leader.

I now think Romney has the three main traits: he's virtuous, he's disinterested, and he has practical wisdom.

If Obama has any of the three, it might be virtue. He certainly has no practical wisdom. He's the biggest doofus in town when it comes to the economy, or getting jobs going. He is also very factional -- he hates or is indifferent to all real Americans. He does like Europe, and Japan, but he is not the president of Europe or Japan.

We need a leader we can trust. We don't need a demagogue like Perry, and we don't need a clueless twit like Obama. We need someone with Aristotle's three virtues for credible leadership.

Only Romney has all three.

John Althouse Cohen said...

It's not true that the debates aren't real debates. The candidates often have vigorous exchanges with each other, and the moderators often challenge the candidates' positions on the issues. Say whatever you want about any of the specific candidates, but we have been seeing substantive debates.

Carol_Herman said...

Mitt Romney is the "new" McCain.

At the convention will be true "breeders" ... (Bible Belt whites who hate homosexuals and hispanics.) They think if they're in these seats ... they'll rule.

No. They. Won't.

If the "idea" is to "give it to Romney" because he appeals to democraps ... you're looking at what's wrong right there! It is NOT up to you to pick the democraps candidates!

And, you won't win much is your only complaint is being you hate obama.

Obama is not Jimmy Carter!

And, believe it or not ... right before your eyes ... obama went from "trying to solve the Mideast process" ... by reaching for Dubya's bullshit! (About borders.) To suddenly showing up at the UN ... and veering in the opposite direction!

Let alone that Bibi worked with him for 6 days ... To free 6 Jewish security officers ...held hostage in Cairo. In the Israeli Embassy.

Obama knew right then he didn't want to be Jimmy Carter!

Plus, it's the European's EU/EURO that's BLOWING UP. (Or actually going so badly south ... every country is now printing their own money. And, it's the gnomes in Belgium. AND, the "Theater of the Absurd" at the UN ... that's gonna get shafted.

You mean you didn't notice Abbas NOT getting his "paper vote?"

You mean you didn't notice the "state" for the Palestinians ... was gonna move their chair closer to the Vatican's "state chair?" Heck, they couldn't even do that!

And, they don't have enough money, without aid, to feed their people, ahead.

Obama went and shifted his message ... as smoothly as any successful politician does it.

Then, he went out and played a round of golf.

Scott M said...

Only Romney has all three.

Please 'splain how Romney is disinterested. He's voluntarily seeking the office at great cost.

Kent said...

Ann, I endorse your point. The president ought to be thoughtfully persuasive, and to be perceived as such. A debate is a good test of that, no not perfect, but so far Perry's debating falls short in both savvy and substance. Maybe he's tired, maybe he's tongue-tied, or maybe he just isn't sharp enough. His poor academic record heightens doubts about the latter, just as McCain's did. No, that doesn't mean that smarter and/or better debating trumps other qualities like direction, vision, etc., but it's big minus in a country confused and sharply divided.

bagoh20 said...

How many times in a life do you have to be fooled by how people say things rather than what they do? I only care what the next President will do.

This nation is not capable of being galvanized by speeches or appearances right now. We have to do tough things, and you just have to accept that half the country is gonna hate your policies if they have any chance of actually accomplishing any reform. Give up the dream of unity.

Only results will move a people who have already heard it all from both sides for too long. Our current technology allows us to hear far too high a ratio of rhetoric to action. We want change, not talk, so how well the talk is delivered is not of much interest to serious people.

I only care about what a candidate believes and what his history shows he can do. The rest is bull shit. A candidate needs only to express his vision and have history of making that vision work. I'm not a Republican, but most of the GOP candidates have that, including Perry.

That's how I wish it worked anyway.

trumpetdaddy said...

Nobody was asking Perry to break through walls. Being able to articulate a rationale for his policies beyond flat talking points and emoting would have been enough.

Much of what a president has to do is be persuasive to the people and the Congress. Making the case for policies is what the job entails, for the most part.

We aren't seeking Demosthenes. Something better than your average county commissioner is expected, however.

Sloanasaurus said...

I think the media is piling on disgruntlement from various quarters than neither Romney or Perry meet everyone's 100% ideal candidate. Thus, you read stories, like no one is satisfied with the GOP field, or all the GOP candidates are "light-weights."

All this is just controversy creating from the media. IN the end it will only lower expectations for the candidate that ultimately wins the nomination.

Both Perry and Romney are heavywight candidates. Both have considerable experience - way more than Obama, and both are way more conservative than McCain.

timmaguire42 said...

Frankly, I like gridlock. It's always better when each party controls something. Keeps the extremists in both parties in line. IMO, gridlock was key to Clinton's successes, total control was key to Bush's failures.

Since the Republicans will control both houses of congress, I can live with the Democrats keeping the White House. (Besides, the best of the Tea Party Republicans won't be ready until 2016 anyway.)

Echoing the Instapundit references above, if the Republicans get the whole ball of wax in 2012, then the Tea Party itself needs to take control of something to be sure the RINOs don't run the show.

edutcher said...

Carol_Herman said...

Mitt Romney is the "new" McCain.

He's also the old McCain, or, at least, McCain was Milton lite.

Kirby Olson said...

Aristotle said that a good leader should have three qualities if they wish to be credible: virtue, disinterest, and practical wisdom.

Perry has come off as a demagogue, throwing in answers that help him gain instant traction. This reveals a lack of natural virtue.


That's nice obfuscation, but Perry's not a demagogue, however.

And we're electing a President, not a Philosopher King. In either case, I don't see Milton as measuring up.

Last I looked, Milton folded in the Bay State on health and flipped elsewhere (not exactly virtuous) and has yet to renounce it, so his disinterestedness (?) on the issue of ZeroCare ("if I could make it work on the national level, I'd be vindicated") is questionable.

PS I think we can safely put Mark O down as a vote for GodZero.

Mogget said...

Following two poor debate showings, Perry muffed a third. Slow learner; not presidential material.

Carol_Herman said...

Dear John ALthouse Cohen @ 10:35 AM

Once, vaudeville was real show business!

There was a time women weren't even allowed in. And, there were no seats. The men stood.

Outside, fruit and vegetable vendors sold their rotted product. So the men, who were known to spit on the floor, too, could throw the rot they bought. (Rotten eggs could also fly.)

Then? Believe it or not, theater owners thought they'd make more money by forcing the acts to clean up. (No dirty words.) And, then they put in seating. And, women were also invited to attend.

Vaudeville got even better than the circus at bringing in "box office money." Attendance got real good. And, instead of the audience throwing stuff, a manager with a large wooden hook stood in the wings. When an act got BOO'ed, out came the hook ... held by the manager ... and it was slipped around the doofus who was dragged off-stage.

The audiences, until they left vaudeville altogether ... and switched, instead, to watching movies ... The manager with the hook symbolized the control you can have when acts get bad.

Sure, people who tune in to watch the debates are supporters. On average? More viewers than those that go to attend their local churches.

But it's NOT encouraging people to look at the GOP ... as a place to shop ... should they want to vote differently (say) than they did in 2008.

You've already got numbers for 2008. (Someone corrected me and said the final tally was 53-47.)

If you had to pick a number for Mitt, would you put it above or below 47%?

Alas, the GOP lacks a manager with a hook.

garage mahal said...

John Doe Walker might be available to enter the race soon. What say you?

pm317 said...

We need someone like Hillary on the Repub side to debate Obama -- (she won all of the debates with him in spite of him given softball questions, going second after her, and repeating her ideas with his stammers -- you know the man can't function without totus). Otherwise it will be like the video that Ann has in the post. Perry will look like the hillbilly with his stupid accent and stupid English. Get some polish, man. He also kind of looks old with his stupid smile just like McCain did. I want Obama defeated but this guy is not up to it. We need someone Newt like for the debates but Newt can't be the candidate.

traditionalguy said...

Romney once ran a capital investment fund to buy up businesses, restructure and sell them in parts. That is what the Richard Gere character did in Pretty Woman.

Other than that cunning skill, Romney inherited his wealth.

Romney has not been a career politician, but only because he kept losing the elections he ran in; except for a term in Massachusetts where he made himself fit in with the locals world view that were 180% different from Conservatives world view.

Why would anyone think they know Romney's plans for us? All he really wants is to hold the office his Daddy fell short of getting nominated for.

bagoh20 said...

The only time this stuff counts is in campaigns. After the election you are stuck with the best talker - congratulations. Once elected the President gets to propose his ideas in controlled practiced speeches. This debate shit is not what being President is about. Would you automatically elect the best of the debate club right now or anytime real things need done.

I'd prefer a President with Tourette's or Lock Jaw who will have the guts to make changes without trying the hopeless game of dressing it up to make everyone think he's smart.

Change has to come. The most dangerous thing we can do is elect another sweet talking liar. Tell us the truth, I don't care how you say it, but please somebody say it.

Carol_Herman said...

If you have two kids, and only one pie ... the way wise mothers divide it ... is NOT to cut it herself ... because this will give her only two screaming, and unhappy kids.

Nope. Smart mothers hand one kid the knife ... AS THEY SAY ... while the other kid has first choice of which slice to take.

It's hard being fair. But mothers who are smart know how to solve some of these problems.

For the GOP? The party is "small pie." The democraps have a bigger share. And, then, the voters (kids without party clout) ... come along to FIRST THING ... CHOOSE FOR WHOM THEY'LL VOTE!

FDR learned bad times don't push people away from your party! And, even those who don't have jobs ... and used to be ashamed of taking dole ...Lined up to vote for FDR ... again and again.

Did the GOP learn any lessons?

Well, today, they'll tell ya how great Hoover was!

And, how much better Thomas E. Dewey was (TWICE). Lost to the dying FDR in 1944. Learned NOTHING!

But, you bet, the best dressed man in the world was Thomas E. Dewey. He didn't even go out without his gloves and hat!

Too bad, today, everybody wears jeans, huh?

And, there's still lots of hippies who vote for the democraps. As they watch that their kids still do.

Did you know not all that many people are knocking Obama? They're unhappy with their own finances. They had hoped things would get better.

But ya know what? Lots of folk still blame the republicans for what happened. (That "bubble thing" was very, very bad for the GOP.) Nobody's talking about it!

Nobody's talking that the retail customers NEVER RETURNED to Wall Street!

(It was the same all the way back from 1929 ... to about 1950.) Retail customers didn't return. If you were making your living earning commissions ... you were better off selling encyclopedias. Or life insurance.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

It's not true that the debates aren't real debates

I don't think you understand the definition of debate

A debate is a formal process where opposing ideas are debated. A topic is raised and each side, or person, has an opportunity to make an argument or present their side of the issue.

A debate is not a bunch of gotcha questions from biased media hacks.

A debate is not each candidate getting separate questions from other candidates.

A debate is not for the so called moderator to attack the candidates.

These phoney debates are just dog an pony shows and show us nothing about the candidates or allow them to express their opinions or positions in any meaningful manner.

richard mcenroe said...

Chris Christie is a fat Jersey loudmouth who can balance a checkbook. Good for him, and NJ needs that right now, but he won't last a week in a Presidential run.

It's a sign of how desperate the institutional GOP is getting that they are pushing for Christie as a preferable alternative to the candidates their base responds to. It's almost as if they have no faith in the principles their party espouses or something...

bagoh20 said...

"We need someone like Hillary on the Repub side to debate Obama -- (she won all of the debates with him in spite of him given softball questions, going second after her, and repeating her ideas with his stammers -- you know the man can't function without totus)."

Hillary lost. The stammerer won.

Matt said...

He forgot to say Perry wins elections...in Texas. Big difference between Texas and the rest of the US. Perry would not win as governor in many other states.

Carol_Herman said...

Mitt's first name is really Milton?

Every time I saw "Milton" ... I thought someone was referencing Milton Berle!

Are we allowed to have a comedian coming out on stage? Wouldn't it liven things up?

Carol_Herman said...

Is it a secret to show what the "funny underwear" looks like?

What about the holes in the curtain?

I heard there are holes in the curtain! (But of course, this could be a lie. It's a lie to say Orthodox Jews only fuck their wives through the holes in the sheets.)

But lies have their own magic.

bagoh20 said...

"It's a sign of how desperate the institutional GOP is getting that they are pushing for Christie as a preferable alternative to the candidates their base responds to."

No, at 14 months from the election, it's healthy and right to still be looking. The GOP is looking for the perfect candidate. There is no such thing, but looking hard is how you find the best. I think there are a number of current GOP people who could win. There is nothing wrong with staying open-minded this early. This is a healthy GOP, unlike the old one that used to nominate the oldest member. Thank you Tea Party.

traditionalguy said...

By the standard used on Rick Perry in this comment thread, the nomination must go to Herman Cain.

He is not a funny Pizza Guy, Carol.

Herman was the leader that was selected by Pillbury to do the hardest jobs to fix failing businesses in a competitive food services arena. He was the Harry Callahan of the leadership teams that got sent to do the dirty jobs and unexpectedly succeeded in them every time .

He is in essence a business executive and a massively talented leader. He has recently honed his media skills in Radio. While Not an actor like Reagan was , he is a savvy communicator in sound byte land.

If Herman takes the nomination, he will do a Harry Truman on them and win the election the Rove/ Bush interests wants lost until Jeb is ready.

What happens to Obama when he loses 30% of his African American base?

Carol_Herman said...

Herman Cain would attract the Black base about as well as Clarence Thomas has attracted them. (Which means NOT AT ALL.)

I didn't say Herman Cain was the "funny" Pizza Guy. Only that in all probabilities he will be the vice presidential candidate.

Just like the elder Bush didn't win his re-election AFTER he put Clarence Thomas on the bench.

Blacks don't forget!

They may be disappointed that their lots in life haven't improved much. But they'll blame the racists in the GOP ...

Long before you see Obama shedding black voters.

edutcher said...

Carol_Herman said...

Mitt's first name is really Milton?

Willard Milton Romney.

"Mitt" is the nickname of his Uncle Milton.

Cedarford said...

Bender said...
Seriously though, how many debates is a president in each day in the Oval Office?

=================
More than you can imagine, likely never having been in an executive position, yourself.
A President has to weight a number of facts and competing options when weighing a policy or decision. Something people like FDR, Eisenhower, JFK, Nixon, Clinton were rather good at. Reagan was lucky to have a group of wise men that hashed out the issues and gave him the overall recommendations...and Reagan was good at not knowing all the facts but filtering the facts that mattered.
Then you have "go with your gut!" types like Jimmy Carter, Algore, Dubya, John McCain, and the Teleprompter Reader.

Debate is one way to see executive abilities on dsplay. There are actually many agencies that test people for a series of attributes that comprise executive ability. Of course both Parties reject that - who wants their people tested and labelled on executive ability??

But perhaps it is more important to handling the job in the Oval Office than the ability to win adoration with the Base through soaring, transcendent speeches - many that depend on a Gershon, a Noonan, or a David Axelrod writing things the yahoos want to hear.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

What happens to Obama when he loses 30% of his African American base?

A friend made this observation yesterday.

Obama was elected based on the color of his skin.

We may elect Cain based on the content of his character.

Which one would be the fulfillment of Martin Luther King's I have a dream speech?

Carol_Herman said...

Oh, yeah. While you were having these debates in Orlando, you probably failed to notice what was going on at Turtle Bay. (The UN.)

Where the nut in a dinner jacket saw the audience leave ... and, he was left talking his hate speech to empty chairs. And, the saud's.

Then came Obama, Bibi, and Abbas. Each in turn.

Obama and Bibi were on the same page!

And, Abbas couldn't get the 9 votes he needed in the Security Council circus ring. (Which meant America didn't have to "veto.)

I was very impressed that obama fixed what he broke with Bibi.

Where the "peace process" games continue.

The "peace process" is a longer running show than anything. It's still going, even after Jimmy Carter shed all of his popularity.

The debaters had nothing to discuss on this issue?

And, nothing to "theorize" about the EURO?

Go ahead. Take them seriously. It must be a real religious experience!

gerry said...

What happens to Obama when he loses 30% of his African American base?

Ouch. Good one.

bagoh20 said...

I like Cain too. I'm a businessman and I know his approach. He has a better chance of reforming this country than the others. 1st because he knows what he believes in will work - he's done it. Second because he is not a politician. I know people think this is politics, so you need a good politician. Our current problems are not the kind that respond to that - not now.

Also, I would love Black Americans to have this choice. It would be far more valuable than simply electing the first Black President. They would have to look at the men themselves, their vision, their history, their abilities. They would see politics for the first time devoid of race. They would live in a nation where they will be asked to judge not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

Carol_Herman said...

Oh, sweet Jesus, Mittens first name is WILLARD?

But he's not Willie!

No one can replace Willie!

You know, I've seen ballots in my time. You can't go by your nickname.

You can show your nickname within quote marks. But you MUST put down your real name! What a hoot that's gonna be.

I say the "funny underwear guy" ... can't even reach the 47% threshold to lose by.

Bender said...

Romney has not been a career politician, but only because he kept losing the elections he ran in . . . Why would anyone think they know Romney's plans for us?
_________________

That Romney has, in fact, made a career out of running for office, seeking this office, then that office, and then some other office, pretty clearly establishes that he is, in fact, a career politician.

That Romney has lost almost every time merely establishes that he is NOT as competent in running things that he and his supporters would have us believe.

And one reason that NO ONE has any trust in what Romney might actually do in office is because, all too often, he too has "voted present" on contemporary issues -- nowhere to be seen or heard from whenever a major controversy first raises its head.

Kirby Olson said...

@ Scott M, "disinterested" in this sense means working for America, rather than for himself, or for some specific faction at the expense of another. Acorn, for instance, is "interest."

The ACLU is supposed to show "disinterest" and to work for the greater good of America, but doesn't.

Judges are supposed to be disinterested.

(Increasingly, it has become apparent that they aren't.)

But Solomon, for instance, was disinterested in the sense that he wanted to do what was RIGHT in the UNIVERSAL sense.

It's very difficult to do that, but a good ref in a professional basketball game can manage it (generally).

So can some umps in Little League baseball.

Most teachers can avoid grading according to favoritism.

That's what I mean by disinterested. Or that's what Aristotle means by disinterested.

Some think it's not possible. The left thinks it's not possible.

I think it's possible.

Matt said...

I'm more and more convinced that the GOP voters don't want a living breathing politician but instead a robot who can be programmed to say the right things to get elected.

Or a politician who has no record. Note that one of the reasons Obama appealed so strongly with Democrats is he had virtually no record so voters could project their dreams and hopes on what he said. If the GOP had someone like Obama it would ignite the base. Palin's the closet one you've got [who might run] but her appeal doesn't extend beyond true conservatives.

Other than that it is Rubio who will be your 2016 star if Obama is re-elected.

bagoh20 said...

"Debate is one way to see executive abilities on dsplay."

Cederford, I've been a successful executive nearly all my adult life, and I don't think debate skills play much of a roll at all - these TV debates especially. This is why lawyers I've known are not particularly good business executives. The chief executive doesn't debate issues - he asks questions and decides. He needs to get other people to debate with each other and their own ideas, so that the team provides the best advice. Then he needs wisdom from experience to choose correctly.

Carol_Herman said...

Edutcher @ 10:46 AM ...

HA HA HA

You think Mark O voted for Obama!

Have I got news for you!

Oh, and get the GOP's possible 2012 sticker right: "FUNNY underwear Man, and Pizza Guy."

Not a chance the ticket wins anything. (But then, it's like most lottery tickets. People dream big and throw their money out the window.)

Almost Carol Herman said...

And speaking of Rommel: He was left-handed. And he didn’t care for the Italians.

But the Italians make the best gazpacho, even if the Germans make a better Gestapo!

And how about that Harold Baines? Now there was a right fielder. But he hit and threw left – JUST LIKE ROMMEL!! Baines had a fro the size and shape of a Volkswagen. And Volkswagens float. How would things have turned out if Teddy Kennedy had been driving a Beetle that night?

But Teddy had a ’67 Olds 88. That one sank like a stone. And Harold Baines was stoned on cocaine for much of the 1987 season…cocaine, first synthesized by ol’ Doc Willst├Ątter in…Germany! In 1898, the same year Mauser made their famed bolt-action, carried on the western front in 1914 by none other than PFC Erwin Rommel.

Leave it to the party of stupid to nominate another Texican like Perry, boy howdy hoo.

Bender said...

Bender said...
Seriously though, how many debates is a president in each day in the Oval Office?


=================
IGNORANT WRONG ANSWER: More than you can imagine, likely never having been in an executive position, yourself.

CORRECT ANSWER: None. The president is in exactly ZERO debates in his administration. He doesn't debate -- HE'S THE PRESIDENT, whatever he says goes in his administration, period. He doesn't have to debate with the vice president or the secretary of state and then the cabinet follows whomever they think "won" the debate. Rather, the president says "jump" and they do whatever the hell he tells them to do.

Christopher in MA said...

"John Doe Walker might be available to enter the race soon. What say you?"

At least he's a citizen.

ic said...

Cain -- Rubio

Whities are too over pc to be genuine. They can't articulate what and how they feel because they don't want to alienate specific minority groups. They subject minority groups to low expectations. The Whities want individual freedom and individual responsibilities, yet they communicate with minority groups thru their self-appointed leaders: Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, La RAZA,... Minorities are no longer thinking patriortic Americans, but hyphenated Americans. Of course there are a lot of stupid minority Americans, eg, those who waved the Mexican flag in their protests. But there are more than a few stupid white Americans too: those who found Old Glory offensive to foreigners. Unfortunately, a stupid white is a stupid white individual, a stupid black is stupid blacks,...

Let Cain and Rubio smash the logjam and let us be Americans, not hyphenated Americans. Let's admit there is always racism. The more accurate term is "tribal xenophobism". Whities are no saints, why do everybody expects them so? They are as ignorant, selfish, cynical, racialist as everybody else. The only difference is rich politically-connected whites are more condescending and arrogant than non-whites to gain advantages: eg. Kaiser, Buffett, Soros.

These ultra rich liberals manipulate minority groups. They want the "rich" to pay more taxes, so there is more taxpayers money to "stimulate" their pockets.

How much "stimulus money" does a black get? A welfare check. The white Kaiser got $535 millions for his Solyndra, the white Buffett got Goldman Sachs and Bank of America among other things, Soros got $20 billion for Petrobra, and a lot of chump change for Lightsquared.

Disclosure: I'm one of those who were called Orientals. Then the term Orientals was deemed racist by self-proclaimed leaders. Now I'm an Asian-American.

Scott M said...

@Almost

You're sentences are too long and coherent. You have too few carriage returns. More stream of consciousness and less sense, please.

bagoh20 said...

In practice, the chief executive automatically wins the debate, so how good he is at is completely beside the point.

Cedarford said...

edutcher said...
What Jane said.

Apparently, TX politics is speeches and pressing the flesh; you don't have to do a lot to justify your point of view.

That's what's killing Perry and it makes Dubya's inability to defend himself when the Lefty lies about Iraq and Katrina started a lot more understandable.


=======================
Very good point. Dubya's inability or complacency about defending himself on policies or incidents was instrumental in the Left and the progressive Jews of the media then having control of "The Narrative".
Abu Ghraib! Katrina! Torture! Gitmo! Amnesty for illegals! Plame! SS reform! The Republican Party of the Rich and Corruption!

Bush not defending himself torpedoed his policys, discredited him at home and abroad, then expanded to discredit Republicans by proxy.

The other sides "Narratives" and Alinsky tactics won.

Want Dubya II, or someone that can articulately defend policies to the masses, not just "Their Base"?

Scott M said...

Cain -- Rubio

I said this yesterday. I would still want a heaping helping of popcorn to watch the Dem base tear itself to bits over this ticket like they did during the 2008 primaries.

trumpetdaddy said...

These debates illustrate several things about Perry.

He and his team are apparently incapable of preparing and rehearsing cogent answers to perfectly predictable attacks. This speaks poorly of his ability to anticipate and prepare for problems.

Secondly, he does not appear to react well on his feet when challenged in a pressure situation. Being challenged in pressure situations pretty much defines dealing with the Congress and foreign leaders. Not encouraging.

Thus far, Parry has come across as lazy, incoherent, and arrogant.

His slip in the polls is not surprising.

yashu said...

Yeah, it's disappointing. I still like him (the substance of his record & long experience as governor speaks for itself)-- & still have some hope his debating skills might improve-- but, like it or not, we need someone who'll cut through O's verbal fog like a knife. (It's a metaphor, civility police.) Romney, for all his faults, probably can.

(Not that that takes highfalutin oratorical skills. The O balloon's already punctured. But you need the ability to drive the point home, through the layers of MSM insulation & distraction.)

Of course, then we can look forward to an election season filled with derision of Mormons instead of derision of Texans.

Cain's a great guy, but IMO doesn't have what it takes, experience-wise. He's a feel-good candidate, the political ingenue of the race, but he strikes me as too naive in important respects to be an effective president. Cleaning up after Obama, dealing with the damage he's left behind, domestically & internationally, navigating & extirpating things that are now rooted institutionally, is going to be a hard, hard slog. I feel much more comfortable with someone who's been governor (a complex job with lots of different aspects, pressures, & competing considerations) than someone who's just run a pizza chain (though real-world business experience is a great asset).

Mark O said...

The only way I would vote for Obama is to vote him off the island. He's been President less time than JFK's entire term and already he's the worst president in history. To quote the Fantasticks, he's a tender and callow fellow. May he leave us alone.

bagoh20 said...

"Bush not defending himself torpedoed his policys"

Which is why he was reelected, and then the next President continued those submarine policies.

Scott M said...

"Bush not defending himself torpedoed his policys"

Not necessarily, as bagoh pointed out, but it did make things messy.

Cedarford said...

Bender said...
Bender said...
Seriously though, how many debates is a president in each day in the Oval Office?

=================
IGNORANT WRONG ANSWER: More than you can imagine, likely never having been in an executive position, yourself.

CORRECT ANSWER: None. The president is in exactly ZERO debates in his administration. He doesn't debate -- HE'S THE PRESIDENT, whatever he says goes in his administration, period. He doesn't have to debate with the vice president or the secretary of state and then the cabinet follows whomever they think "won" the debate. Rather, the president says "jump" and they do whatever the hell he tells them to do.

Just more proof you have never been in an executive position and still fail to have any understanding of what executives do. You confuse the power of the final decision with how good execs run the business.

bagoh20 said...

Nobody is gonna talk their way through the media and get everyone to love their policies. They are gonna be attacked relentlessly for being racist, cruel, and heartless.

The next President just needs to be honest and straight forward. That is what stymies the media. It's not a hard thing to do if you've lived a life is outside of politics. Unfortunately, too much of the campaign is about words and style, when these people all have a whole life behind them to be evaluated. Whoever we elect is gonna do pretty much the same kind of things for the next 4 years as they did before that, just with added power and influence. That tells you what you need to know without looking at anything else. The rest of this obfuscates rather than illuminates.

Pragmatist said...

Poor Mitt...it is tough to try and appear crazy when you are not. And having to crazy down to his audience so he can "fire up the base" must be hell. And then to have to answer the "flip flop" charges from yet another yahoo from Texas trying to "good ole boy" his way to a nomination. Must be hard for sane Republicans to have to stand there and smile and pretend that they are as ignorant, backward and crazy as the Tea Tards in the audience who shout and hoot at every crazy idea mentioned. It will make a good Dem commercial duing the general election when all of the panding comments to the Wackos comes back to haunt them.

bagoh20 said...

"It will make a good Dem commercial duing the general election when all of the panding comments to the Wackos comes back to haunt them."

Oh, I think Obama has a few of those himself.

So what's a voter to do? There are terrible optics and sound bites all around.

Use their record - that what.

The community organizer is still at it.

pm317 said...

bagoh20 said...

"We need someone like Hillary on the Repub side to debate Obama -- (she won all of the debates with him in spite of him given softball questions, going second after her, and repeating her ideas with his stammers -- you know the man can't function without totus)."

Hillary lost. The stammerer won.
--------------------
If McCain was like Hillary, he would have won against the TOTUS.. get it?! BTW, Hillary didn't lose with the people, the party SELECTED Obama. I don't think Republican party will help Obama win, do you?

dreams said...

I don't want pretty boy Romney, he isn't conservative enough for me but I'd take him over Obama and Herman.

Paul said...

I look at deeds, not words.

Obama was all words (and lies at that), and now you see is pathetic deeds.

Rick is right the reverse. He may not say it well, but he says it from the heart and he will follow through.

Richard Dolan said...

Rick Perry's problem is that we're having a heavy dose of buyer's remorse with all that Hope n' Change stuff, which turned out to be a version of Home Alone at the White House. Adult supervision is desperately needed; experience matters, particularly in dealing with America's business; and someone promising to do his learning on the job is not what anyone wants. If he's really up to the job, he needs to show us. Perry's fumbling is making the opposite demonstration.

a psychiatrist who learned from veterans said...

@traditionalguy

He worked for the Pillsbury food group? I think one thing that hurts him is that observers don't know if this Godfather's Pizza thing amounted to something or not. The idea of adding a 9% sales tax to everything might be too much and encourage fraudulent officially low sales prices when added to local sales taxes.

Freeman Hunt said...

I don't care. Give me any of them over Obama.

Perry, Romney, Christie: all are good enough. Any of the other contenders are good enough too.

The bar is so low.

Heck, I'd even take Hillary.

Matt said...

Scott M said...
Cain -- Rubio I would still want a heaping helping of popcorn to watch the Dem base tear itself to bits over this ticket...

We wouldn't fret. We would treat it like we would if Alan Keyes was running with Alberto Gonzales.

Scott M said...

We wouldn't fret.

I'm glad you can speak for the entire Democratic party and all of its constituent groups. Big hat tip to the alter of central planning you all revere so much.

We wouldn't fret.

Much like there was no fretting during the Obama-Hillary primaries. Gotcha.

Lance said...

Um, why would I want a President that gets tired in the middle of a one-hour debate?

John Lynch said...

Which do we want, someone who produces results or someone who speaks well?

Isn't that the election in a nutshell?

I'm tired of a person's ability being judged by whether they can string words together. It's not a good measure of leadership or character.

American culture in general overvalues verbal ability. We should value accomplishments and character, not the ability to give a speech.

The continuous media noise from politicians' misspoken words doesn't tell us anything about what government officials are doing. It's a distraction. We spend time parsing their words to try to see inside their heads instead of watching what they actually do. What people are thinking becomes more important than what they are doing.

Having the right thoughts is becoming more important than doing the right thing. It's not just Democrats who do this (although they did far more damage.) The bizarre rise of Bachman and Cain, two people who have never had any executive experience in government, shows what a problem this has become. Ron Paul was an earlier incarnation of the ideological candidate, someone who says the right things but has done nothing.

Voters-stop voting for people who are good at parroting your pet ideology. It's easy to tell voters what they want to hear. Why put so much value on "tellin' it like it is?" I know how it is. I want it to change. I don't care much for people who simply tell me things I agree with.

Vote for people who can get things done.

LilEvie said...

Romney is no McCain.

McCain always knew he had all the answers, and was arrogant and impatient with any that disagree. He also would have been the "great compromiser" when the D's ran congress.

Romney is malleable. As long as the Tea Party leads, he will follow. He is an administrator; he won't do anything too drastic. Romney is the new Clinton, minus the vices.

Ann is right, the debates will be key, and Perry will be dull and unprepared against Obama.

Kirby Olson said...

I'm with Freeman Hunt. I'd take anyone, even Hillary, over another four years of the Big Zero. I can't stand to listen to his sentences any longer. If they are even sentences.

Is

Yes we can!

Even a sentence? Or is it a sentence fragment?

Doesn't he have to say "do what"?

I don't even think "Yes we can!" is a complete thought.

Matt said...

Scott M

None of us fretted about Alan Keyes when he ran against Obama in Illinois. Same thing with Cain. Just because he is black means nothing. People don't win major elections because of skin color -although it can help if it is perceived in a certain way. [He is one of us, etc].

I'll grant you Rubio is a different kind of politician [read that young and maleable to whatever the GOP wants at this point].

But still no fretting.

The comparison with Hillary is not apt because Hillary was initially in the lead. She was the one to beat and Obama was the underdog. You bet there was plenty of fretting about Hillary at the time. I won't deny that.

Scott M said...

First Woman vs First Half-Black Man. I was home with a newborn at the time and watched a TON of coverage, of all stripes, on the primaries.

There was fretting aplenty. The Michigan and Florida situations alone point to the level of "apt".

Freeman Hunt said...

Ann is right, the debates will be key, and Perry will be dull and unprepared against Obama.

That would be a real problem. How would we tell the two of them apart?

Saint Croix said...

The Republican race, 4 years ago at this time...

#1 Rudy Giuliani
#2 Fred Thompson

Wipeout. Both of them.

It's really, really early on the Republican side.

The only polls that matter are the ones on the President.

Obama’s support among African-Americans dropped in September to 58 percent, down from 83 percent five months ago, according to a Washington Post/ABC News poll.

We will rally behind a candidate and she will kick Obama's ass.

Bender said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Bender said...

Romney is malleable. As long as the Tea Party leads, he will follow. He is an administrator; he won't do anything too drastic.
______________

Yes, he is malleable. So malleable that, once in office, he will NOT follow the Tea Party, but will instead go along and get along with Harry Reid, et al.

He certainly will not do anything so drastic as to seriously oppose the Dems, much less will Mitt go to the mat to tear down what the Dems have done.

Mitt Romney as president would be nothing less than four years of conservatives getting pissed off, pulling their hair out by the roots in frustration as he weasels out of really doing anything constructive.

Fred4Pres said...

I have to admit that (in a debate) Romney would do much better against Obama than Perry would.

I think Herman Cain would do very well indeed against Obama.

Peter Hoh said...

Four years ago, the GOP was looking for somebody other than McCain.

Giuliani, Thompson, and Huckabee each had their turn generating excitement, but none were able to turn that into a winning campaign.

Even though he had been written off more than once, the party settled on McCain.

It seems that we're seeing the same process play out. We've been through several "not-Romney" candidates, and each has faltered.

Fortunately for Perry, his debate performance matters more to the chattering class than it does to actual voters. He has plenty of time to sell himself to New Hampshire voters.

yashu said...

What John Lynch @1:49 said. It's easy for someone like Cain to be a crowd-pleaser-- to say the "right things"-- because he has no political record to defend, which, in the real world, will always be a mixed bag. Especially in a complex role like governor, where you can't vote "present"-- a job which requires real pragmatism, difficult pragmatism, not O's fake kind.

(And even then, Cain has said some truly dunderheaded things, like re Muslims in his administration. The guy has serious limitations; but he's not pushed, pressed, & cornered in the debates like Perry is, so they don't come to light.)

This is one reason I still like Perry a lot-- judging him for what he's actually done, as opposed to his ability to please a crowd with words, spoon-feeding the audience just what they want hear. Actually, the fact that he's not afraid to displease a crowd-- to say things that elicit boos, being honest rather than pandering to the particular audience before him-- is a plus for me.

But It's definitely a negative that (so far) he hasn't been able to effectively defend & explain those controversial policies or stances (e.g. re illegal immigration). Perry could have & should have given much better answers, that were more accurately descriptive & just as honest. The "don't have a heart" thing was just bad.

Then there's Romney, who pleases the crowd by being rhetorically chameleonic & of dubious sincerity-- Obama's campaign M.O. (Though he's nowhere near as bad as O-- Romney's no sociopath.) For this reason, again, I prefer Perry. But, I have to admit, Perry has to do better than he's done to win the nomination & beat Obama.

traditionalguy said...

Yashu...You have a point that Obama and Romney share the tendency to stand outside of American Scots-Irish derived Christian culture and see American people like a smart outsider anthropologist would.

That gives both men the ability to posture at will and stick in a foreign concept or two to prove that they have figured us out and can trick us into what they want.

The individual mandate to purchase insurance is a perfect trick both men came up with and are still laughing at us about.

A Perry or a Cain comes at us honestly and don't pull their punches.

Perry does think many determined Hispanic haters are heartless.

Cain does think solar and wind energy policy replacing carbon based energy is a joke.

Cain does think Muslim mosques are enemy beachheads that mask a foreign invasion under a religios cover that has always been called The Religion of the Sword for 1500 years because it plans theft, murder and enslavement of Jews and Christians... for allah of course.

Nora said...

I'm afraid Romney is American Shimon Peres, i.e. unelectable, regardless of how smoothly he can handle the debates. So far he is well respected mostly by media and pundits.

John Scotus said...

Limbaugh gets this exactly right. It could be that Perry won six elections in a row simply because he was going against weak opponents. He just simply does not seem ready for the big leagues.