November 10, 2011

Peggy Noonan found Rick Perry's "brain freeze" "endearing."

I see the point:
Rick Perry's candidacy wasn't going anywhere before the famous 53-second brain freeze. Now it's official. To me it was the first thing he's done that was endearing. You're out there live in front of six million people, they're watching closely, you're under the lights, every word counts—and you blank. You forget the third element of your robotic soundbite. This is human. But we don't want our presidents to be human, we want them to be perfectly prepped and drilled so we can make fun of their inauthenticity.
Ha. Exactly. Speaking of which:
Mitt Romney, of course, did well, and continues to deserve an award for Heroic Self Discipline in the Cutaway Shot. He looks at the other candidates with a benign, encouraging look, as if he'll take no pleasure in it at all when he squashes them like bugs.
Oh, yeah, the split screens with Romney looking on completely crack me up. I've been wracking my brains trying to come up with the right description, and Peggy's take is just perfect.

83 comments:

lewsar said...

funny, i don't find peggy noonan particularly endearing.

Amartel said...

Remember when Sarah Palin had a bit of a brain freeze in that CBS interview back in 2008? After 9 hours or whatever it was of putting up with Katie Couric's blandly loaded questioning? Yes. That.

Did Noonan find that "endearing?"
I distinctly recall Noonan being quite offended by the very notion of Sarah Palin because Sarah Palin was inadequate to the task because she had a brain freeze moment.

Pogo said...

Peggy Noonan voted for Obama, and likes Romney.

With her Reagan background, I think she's scatterbrained.

ndspinelli said...

"Nice guys finish last."

Leo Durocher

traditionalguy said...

Ricky Perry is endearing. He is a compassionate conservative. He is BushIII.

And he does not have a plan...Steve Forbes has a plan for the USA.

But endearing is almost like Justin Bieber with Pay for Play governing style.

Everything is for sale says the endearing boy.

Hagar said...

My best one was when I had to introduce my big sister to an acquaintance and froze and could not think of her name.

edutcher said...

Peggy Noonan couldn't wait to jump on Zero's bandwagon.

Now, she wants to be let back in the club when it looks like the Republicans will take all the marbles.

Keep the door locked.

traditionalguy said...

Ricky Perry is endearing. He is a compassionate conservative. He is BushIII.

Like Hell.

And get over the Commander of the Ronulans. He's worse than Godzero on foreign policy.

NotquiteunBuckley said...

Nearer, My God

Buckley P. 77

"The perspectives have broadened. In April 1993 the Pontifical Biblical Commission published "The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church." Especially pertinent is the following (from its 3rd section), "Characteristics of Catholic Interpretation." The commission points out, "Granted that tensions can exist in the relationship between various texts of Sacred Scripture, interpretation must necessarily show a certain pluralism. No single interpretation can exhaust the meaning of the whole, which is a symphony of many voices. Thus the interpretation of one particular text has to avoid seeking to dominate at the expense of others."

new york said...

He seems like a very likable guy, just not the best person to be President. I could definitely see him as a television personality though. Let's see what he does on Letterman tonight..

Methadras said...

Aside from the endearing brain fart. It is clear Perry is going to go to the bitter end. He knows it. We know it, but we would still like to see the train wreck happen. Cain has done okay trying to rehab his image and shy away from the accusations and you can already see and feel the wind leaving these womens sails. They know they have little traction left in the face of the highlights of their lives. They thought it would be easy, they have failed. +1 Cain.

ndspinelli said...

Stolen from Trooper York.

If an older woman who has sex w/ a younger man is a Cougar then and older man who has sex w/ a young boy must be a Nitanny Lion.

pm317 said...

Endearing!

Who wants endearing? That would be same standard as wanting to have a beer with W or imagining having sex with Obama (like that woman Judith Warner of NYT). Fuck endearing. We want competence.

Freeman Hunt said...

There is little that is more attractive than competence.

Romney's doing well there.

pm317 said...

I've been wracking my brains trying to come up with the right description,
-------

Yeah, I will have a benevolent face if I am leading in the polls and know that the fix is in. Obama had an arrogant attitude and flipped his finger at Hillary (maybe at McCain too).

Ralph L said...

The URL is "Peggy Noonan found RIck Perrys brain.html"

Is she going to give it back?

Ralph L said...

The URL is "Peggy Noonan found RIck Perrys brain.html"

Is she going to give it back?

ricpic said...

I think we're a little beyond the need for competence, Freeman. Yes, in normal times Romney would make a competent Eisenhowerlike president. And we might even be able to avoid the shoals if he were capable of reducing the size of government 1% a year for the, hopefully, 8 years of his presidency. But that would take saying no, meaning it and sticking with it, to many very big very powerful rice bowls. Romney's not that guy. He's a consensus guy when we need forged steel.

Freeman Hunt said...

Romney would not be my first pick. But my first pick isn't running. Gotta pick somebody who bothered to show up to the dance.

Who would you pick out of the available lineup?

Hagar said...

But it really is not over until the convention speaks, is it?

themightypuck said...

Image matters a lot. Huntsman's problem isn't just that he's no conservative enough (he's at least as conservative as Romney), it's that he's a bit effeminate and that doesn't work. Romney is all image. He's got that shit down.

Steve Austin said...

Everyone over the age of 40 did empathize with Perry. Having that one thing slip your mind in conversation happens to everyone.

The problem with Perry was the way he did it. Rather than forgetting the name of that movie star who was in American Graffiti, Perry's brain whiffed on a pretty big concept. And he kept on whiffing. And gave an air that he really didn't think missing on this was all that important.

That's why he won't avoid the damage.

m stone said...

ricpic: He's(Romney's)a consensus guy when we need forged steel.

Well said.

We've had focus groups with Clinton and pandering to interest groups with Obama (not to mention indecisiveness).

Let shoot for the moon and get some guts for next year.

ricpic said...

Ron Paul.

Beta Rube said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Cedarford said...

Debates are not the be-all of politics. But they do give pols an opportunity to show they have facile minds, are informed on the issues, good communicators, and warm hearts like Obama can.
Perry fails on all counts. Romney fails on just his inability to warm rightwing hearts like Obama could get leftwingers to call him Jesuslike and Dreamy.

Cain is winging it, and the less educated on the right are too dumb to realize he is winging it.

BTW - Kathleen Parker said it was Romney that Perry turned to, hoping to get a prompt to bail Perry out of his brainfart. Romney is the one that said "EPA" to Perry - thinking about Perry saying the EPA is the obstacle to an economic recovery domestic jobs program.

Freeman Hunt said...

But Ron Paul doesn't have a prayer. There is no way he'll ever be the nominee.

So out of those who might plausibly be elected, who would you pick?

themightypuck said...

Voting for President is more than just signalling. At least for me. I'd vote for Hunstman but then again I'm a godless communist.

Freeman Hunt said...

I've never been a Romney hater. He is, perhaps, less fiscally conservative than I'd prefer, but he's acceptable. He's enormously preferable to the guy we have in office now.

Beta Rube said...

You know Freeman, I watched Newt tonight with Laura Ingram who was hosting for O'Reilly, and I love the historical context he gives to his answers.

He doesn't have to speak in soundbites because he has thought about these issues a lot, and he genuinely believes in what he is saying.

I know, I know, he's flawed, can't win. and all the rest. But he would take Obabma apart in a debate, and he has no problem correcting the dopey media in real time. He is also conservative.

Good traits all for the next GOP nominee.

Matt said...

How absurd. I agree if a candidate looks airbrushed and speaks in perfect soundbites they can seem too polished and phony. But when a politician [in a prime time debate] can't come up with three agencies that he himself proposes to get rid of then that is one reason to suspect he is not up to the task - or maybe doesn't really have three in mind.

And it's not just a gaffe - we all do that. It is the way he handled the gaffe when he was unable to find notes to get him back on track. Ooops. He wouldn't pass a freshmen speech class. And that is a problem for someone who wants to be president.

Cedarford said...

m stone - "Let shoot for the moon and get some guts for next year."

In other words, go with a steely rightwinger, lose to Obama, then console yourselves that you "shure done sent a message to President Obama" - And presume he will be mindful of your anger as he does his big decisions and SCOTUS appointments over the next 4 years.

Fr Martin Fox said...

What Steve Austin said.

His "brain freeze" didn't have to be so awful. Had he been just a little more nimble, he could and should have shifted away: start talking about big cuts in spending and government. He "uh'd" and "um'd" for almost a minute.

ricpic said...

Okay, Gingrich. In the full knowledge that he won't be able to stop leviathan from growing either. But he might value liberty enough - though he's a creature of the state - to fight leviathan. Even as I type this I don't believe it.

Beta Rube said...

I think Newt actually did help arrest the growth of the Federal budget when he was speaker. It didn't last, of course, but he had a better year or two than the folks in there now.

Kirby Olson said...

With Perry fizzling and Cain disabled, I think Bachman might go into Overdrive on the next Turn. "Taking Care of Business and Working Overtime," should be her theme song. I predict that she wins in Iowa.

Freeman Hunt said...

But is Gingrich electable? I think he already committed political suicide with his personal life. Sure, we had Clinton, but Clinton had the advantage of being a liberal and having the backing of the press. Gingrich won't have that. They'll kill him.

Cedarford said...

Beta Rube - "He doesn't have to speak in soundbites because he has thought about these issues a lot, and he genuinely believes in what he is saying."
================
If you look at Newt, his niche is to pose as "The Perfesser" - Perfesser Obama is the Great MInd of soaring speechifying and soaring visions....and Perfesser Newt is the one posing as the Smartest Man in the Room with the Great Ideas.
That he will share with you, with them delivered with all cosmic profoundity on stage - or better - if you buy his "potentially reordering civiliazation itself, books."

Newts been doing this schtick for 20 years. Making a good living off it. But he throws out his Great Amazing Ideas, then doesn't do anything, then drops them and moves on to the next Grand Theory that will give Newt renewed attention.
He lasted 4 years as Speaker, then resigned. He didn't even have the diligence or patience to follow up on his Contract With America. It was simply a means to an end. Discardable when Newt got where he wanted to be. I think he replaced it with something he called "The New Culture of Morality and Integrity" that was supposed to correct for Clintons moral foibles and open K Street for Repubican donors to meet with Rep pols...

Both Perfesser Obama and Perfesser Newt have schticks that the voter should see through, but the two sides cannot. Willful partisan blindness.

Kirby Olson said...

You Ain't Seen Nothing Yet.

ricpic said...

Wow, I sure hope Kirby Olson is right. I LOVE Bachmann. Gutsy lady.

Beta Rube said...

So we want a pure conservative, sincere in mind, body, and spirit, charismatic and attractive to independents, and insulated from press criticism.

My, my, where does an ordinary sinner like me go to find a candidate?

m stone said...

Cedarford: have you spotted a "great idea" out of anyone in the dem leadership in the last three years?

Even unexecuted?

edwardroyce said...

My 2 shekels.

1. Perry is toast not because of the brain freeze but because his natural instinct, what he relies on when in trouble, seems always to be towards liberalism. That's not a positive when trying to win over conservatives.

2. Mitt Romney has been running for President now for about 8 years. If he sucked at it that would be a news story. That he is at least competent isn't a story.

Doesn't change the fact that RomneyCare is garbage and that he is another Bush in that he fakes whatever conservatism he has. And could he be worse than Obama? Yeah I think he can.

3. Herman Cain is a nice guy but let's be serious here. The President doesn't really have all that much power domestically because he has to work through Congress. The President's true power is in foreign policy. And Herman Cain has the foreign policy chops of Big Bird from Sesame Street. Maybe less.

I like the guy. But reciting "9-9-9" as if it were a mantra that could deflect all things ain't going to work. There are a lot of serious international problems that are coming to a head over the next 4 years including the dissolution of the EU, China is going to economically implode and who knows what else.

Already the twits at CNBC want us to get involved in bailing out Italy. Which frankly is the stupidest thing I could imagine.

But even with his failings at foreign policy, which he should be working --hard-- to correct, but doesn't seem to be, he could still be a good President.

4. Ron Paul? Oh for the love of God! 80% ok, 15% Mad Hatter, 5% March Hare.

5. Jon Huntsman. What did we do to get this guy inflicted on us?

6. Michelle Bachmann. She just hasn't really impressed me on anything.

7. Newt Gingrich. The guy has been involved in politics since 1958! If the guy isn't on top of policy he'd have to be the biggest asshole in the universe. He still might be anyways. But being a policy wonk doesn't imply that he would be a good President.

...

What I'd like to really see is someone really show *leadership*. And honestly I'm not seeing that. I see nonsense. I see gotchas. I see a lot of pointless BS being bandied around. But I'm not seeing leadership.

Freeman Hunt said...

Beta, the person doesn't have to be insulated from the press, but being on one's third wife, and having the latter two marriage begin in adulterous affairs, is problematic. It also speaks to a huge lack of self control.

Beta Rube said...

He's a 68 year old grandfather. I am not his biggest fan, but he is a serious person in these serious times.

I am not convinced the nation has the stomach for another morality play. I think Billy Clinton made them obsolete.

Herman Cain has raised 9 million dollars in the last week or so during unrelenting attacks on his behavior. Hundreds of stories 24/7.

Maybe we have grown up some, even if the press hasn't.

ricpic said...

The fact is when Sarah chose not to run it was a huge implosion for conservatives. Where do you go when Jeanne d'Arc refused the gig?

Bender said...

Yeah, Perry is so stupid and awful.

So stupid and awful that folks are going to dump him and choose Romney instead by default.

Are you folks really going to be that stupid yourselves? Because that would be true stupidity.

Bender said...

You all really are no better than the Dems who swooned over Obama's Greek columns. Just like them, you prefer the shallow and irrelevant to fundamental philosophy and actual governing record and experience.

Beta Rube said...

Extemporaneous speaking ability is only one trait, and not the most important, but elections are won by getting Independents to vote for you, and debates have a large, arguably undue influence on that population.
I have nothing against Perry, but I think if he looks as silly debating Obama as he did last night, we are pretty much guaranteed 4 more years of nonsense and worse.

themightypuck said...

So Bender, who's your pick?

themightypuck said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Freeman Hunt said...

I have nothing against Perry, but I think if he looks as silly debating Obama as he did last night, we are pretty much guaranteed 4 more years of nonsense and worse.

I agree with that.

Dane County Taxpayer said...

Romney is a big government Republican. He is not a conservative. I will go third party before I vote for him.

Roux said...

I hate Mitt Romney but I'll vote for him over Obama.

marylynn said...

Sarah was/is the only one with the brains and the balls to bring the change we need. Unfortunately, the press destroyed any possibility she had of winning. They are all poor seconds next to her. Newt is smart, a great debater, but kind of a scum bag ... that leaves Romney for me.

EDH said...

You forget the third element of your robotic soundbite. This is human. But we don't want our presidents to be human, we want them to be perfectly prepped and drilled so we can make fun of their inauthenticity.

Here's where Noonan misses the point by a mile. Perry came across as neither authentic nor human.

Indeed, Perry came across as screwing up a "robotic soundbite" precisely because it was an inauthentic soundbite on a checklist cleared by his advisors, not something that arose from the interest and passion of his life.

To be human would be to miss something that he had strong passion about, something he knew well. Perry just forgot his Facebook password.

Contrast with Newt, as Beta Rube says...

[Newt] doesn't have to speak in soundbites because he has thought about these issues a lot, and he genuinely believes in what he is saying.

Perry comes across as the opposite: unengaged, unprepared and, therefore, even less human in the sense of following his ambition rather than his passion.

EDH said...

Intead of less human, I should have said Perry comes across as less "endearing" in the sense of following his ambition rather than his passion.

Writ Small said...

Desired characteristics in a successful presidential candidate:

1) Executive political experience
2) Executive business experience
3) Strong debate skills
4) Physical stature / attractiveness
5) Command of issues
6) Doesn't scare moderates
7) Strong core convictions
8) Regular guy / gal charm
9) A track record of accomplishment
10) Strong organization and resources


Perry has 6 (1, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10)
Cain has 7 (2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9)
Newt has 4 (3, 5, 7, 9)
Bachmann has 3 (4, 5, 7)
Paul has 3 (3, 5, 7)
Santorum has 3 (4, 5, 7)
Romney has 8 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10)

Perry was promising until we learned he could not debate the national issues.

Cain was attractive until we learned his organization could not withstand a hit job.

If you really want to win, Romney is the guy now.

There is still time to get behind Newt and let the media apply their tender mercies to his personal life - if you really must.

Titus said...

I don't care for Perry's politics but I actually found the brain freeze endearing as well.

Clouds.

Shouting Thomas said...

Cain was attractive until we learned his organization could not withstand a hit job.

That's an interesting statement.

I've been of the same opinion. The attack on Cain is a hit job orchestrated from the White House.

It is Cain's job to weather it and counter punch.

I don't think the results are in yet. We don't know whether the hit job has succeeded. I'm withholding judgment.

Shantastik said...

Peggy Noonan is not worth reading. She voted for and recommended the disaster that is Obama. While she may have occasional good "insights," this is not a woman that should ever be considered "enlightened." 2008 -- we'll never forget Peggy!

pbAndjFellowRepublican said...

WWRD?

All true cons will vote for the candidate w/ the best Brylcreem enhanced pompadour.

SBVOR said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Kirby Olson said...

What are those five departments anyway, and how would you go about cutting them? If the new president could cut all five how much would that save the country? Then if you fired all the czars, and added that to the country's net profits, and then folded up the American military presence in Germany and Japan and Afghanistan and Iraq, and took away all foreign aid except to Israel, would this make any appreciable dent on the deficit? Finally, get rid of social security and medicaid (except for the most indigent) and then got rid of all illegals so that any real American could have some kind of job, would that put the country back in one piece? It's had a great fall.

William said...

I don't think Romney is a flip flopper. As we move through time, we change with the times. Like everyone else on earth I was opposed to gay marriage twenty or thirty years ago. My position on gay marriage has since softened. Now, while I'm still opposed to marrying Rosie O'Donnell, I would be quite willing to marry Portia de Rossi.

Dick Stanley said...

Even a stopped clock, etc.

She's right, Rick was endearing and he's only begun to fight.

As for Robot Romney, the primary voters rejected him last time. Why would they vote for him now?

rcommal said...

"Nice guys finish last."--Leo Durocher

Funny, in a twisted way, given recent [sports+] news headlines.

Coketown said...

I bet T-Paw is kicking himself for ending his campaign so early. Who knew we'd end up with Mitt Romney and the Little Rascals as our field? Fraking Herman Cain's campaign is being run like fratboys planning a panty raid, and Rick Perry has Mr. Magoo running his. What a nightmare.

Seven Machos said...

I don't know what you people have against Romney. Here's a history lesson, people: conservatives were constantly disappointed in Reagan. Immigration, tax cuts, cutting and running in Lebanon, and much else -- National Review soiled itself several times (and when it was a great magazine no less, as opposed to now, when it is merely good).

Get over yourselves. Cain and Palin (who isn't even running and never said she was going run) and all these others are just the Messianic in you. That shit never works.

My primary concern at this point is that all the other candidates suck so heinously bad that Romney will waltz to the nomination and not be challenged enough.

Seven Machos said...

As for Robot Romney, the primary voters rejected him last time. Why would they vote for him now?

1968: As for Nixon, he couldn't even win in California. Why would the nation vote for him now?

1980: As for Reagan, the primary voters rejected him last time. Why would they vote for him now?

1988: As for Bush, the primary voters rejected him last time. Why would they vote for him now?

DEEBEE said...

Romney's relative equanimity reminded me a bit of Dukakis’ when faced with a hypothetical about Kitty.

AllenS said...

It's times like these, when you have to wonder if Perry even knows how many states there are.

Darcy said...

I agree with Noonerz.

I loved the "Oops."

Vastly prefer Rick Perry, you know -- the guy with the impressive conservative record that no one is paying any attention to. I mean, who cares what these guys actually accomplished, as long as they can smoothly debate, right?!

So we'll get the Democrat Romney and like it! Because -- isn't he so polished when he's feeding us bullshit??

Oh, yes, he is.

Scott M said...

I haven't watched it and can't bring myself to watch it. I've never understood quite why, but I have a real problem watching live performances out of sheer empathetic embarrassment should something go wrong for those on stage. I actually had to walk out of a Chinese acrobat show once because of this. Which is all odd because public speaking is something I excel at.

In any case, Perry has certainly panned out flat, all things considered.

Scott M said...

I have nothing against Perry, but I think if he looks as silly debating Obama as he did last night, we are pretty much guaranteed 4 more years of nonsense and worse.

The GOP nominee has volumes of material to work with from Obama's term. Whoever this person is needs to dedicate themselves to studying POTUS from start to finish. Read "his" books. Watch every recorded speech available. Make absolutely sure conflicting statements, such as Obama2007 re national debt and Obama 2011 re national debt.

Those things have to be ready at a second's notice because whoever the GOP nominee is will need to go for the jugular from the very first question in the very first interview.

michaele said...

I've been very conscientious in watching all the debates. Romney is winning me over by not losing...meaning no huge mistakes. He does throw red meat to the fiscally conservative base. My hope is that, should he win the nomination and go on to win the general, that a corresponding GOP tidal wave will sweep in enough conservative Senators to keep Mitt a decently conservative President. I realize that no candidate ever thinks this is a smart approach but I wonder how it would be if he campaigned on the promise to serve just one term and do for the country's fiscal mess what he did for the 2002 Olympics. And have one of the young shining lights (like Marco Rubio) as his VP

Robert Cook said...

"The GOP nominee has volumes of material to work with from Obama's term. Whoever this person is needs to dedicate themselves to studying POTUS from start to finish. Read "his" books. Watch every recorded speech available. Make absolutely sure conflicting statements, such as Obama2007 re national debt and Obama 2011 re national debt.

"Those things have to be ready at a second's notice because whoever the GOP nominee is will need to go for the jugular from the very first question in the very first interview."


This would require focus, hard study, and a nimble mind able to retain and synthesize that broad array of information into a coherent perspective by which he or she can marshall a compelling argument in a spontaneous setting.

None of the halfwits and blowhards running for the Republican nomination have the capacity or desire to do the above, or anything other than gladhand, pander, and mouth pre-scripted talking points. (Ron Paul may be the one exception to the above general characterization, but he's a fanatic, and this creates its own pitfalls in his thinking.)

Face it, no matter who ends up sitting in the White House in January 2013, we lose.

Tank said...

edwardroyce said...
My 2 shekels.

1. Perry is toast not because of the brain freeze but because his natural instinct, what he relies on when in trouble, seems always to be towards liberalism. That's not a positive when trying to win over conservatives.

2. Mitt Romney has been running for President now for about 8 years. If he sucked at it that would be a news story. That he is at least competent isn't a story.

Doesn't change the fact that RomneyCare is garbage and that he is another Bush in that he fakes whatever conservatism he has. And could he be worse than Obama? Yeah I think he can.

3. Herman Cain is a nice guy but let's be serious here. The President doesn't really have all that much power domestically because he has to work through Congress. The President's true power is in foreign policy. And Herman Cain has the foreign policy chops of Big Bird from Sesame Street. Maybe less.

I like the guy. But reciting "9-9-9" as if it were a mantra that could deflect all things ain't going to work. There are a lot of serious international problems that are coming to a head over the next 4 years including the dissolution of the EU, China is going to economically implode and who knows what else.

Already the twits at CNBC want us to get involved in bailing out Italy. Which frankly is the stupidest thing I could imagine.

But even with his failings at foreign policy, which he should be working --hard-- to correct, but doesn't seem to be, he could still be a good President.

4. Ron Paul? Oh for the love of God! 80% ok, 15% Mad Hatter, 5% March Hare.

5. Jon Huntsman. What did we do to get this guy inflicted on us?

6. Michelle Bachmann. She just hasn't really impressed me on anything.

7. Newt Gingrich. The guy has been involved in politics since 1958! If the guy isn't on top of policy he'd have to be the biggest asshole in the universe. He still might be anyways. But being a policy wonk doesn't imply that he would be a good President.

...

What I'd like to really see is someone really show *leadership*. And honestly I'm not seeing that. I see nonsense. I see gotchas. I see a lot of pointless BS being bandied around. But I'm not seeing leadership.


Take a look back at your own #4.

You already gave him 80%, which is more than I'm likely to agree with ANY Dem or Repub nominee.

Paul is the only candidate proposing the scope or kind of changes we must have to avoid the cliff. All of the other candidates, Dem or Repub are driving over the cliff, it's just a question of whether it's 100 MPH, 80 MPH or 60 MPH. Paul is the only one with his foot on the brake.

If we can elect Romney, we'll get a big gov't technocrat, who will take us over the cliff at 80 MPH. Slower than Obama, faster than Cain, Newt, Perry, Bachman et al.

The only candidate even close to Paul is Bachman. She too has no chance.

Joe Schmoe said...

I know what happened. Ron Paul hit him with one of those memory erasers from Men In Black. Ron had unknowingly started to morph back into his alien visage, saw from the look on Perry's face what was happening, and then had to zap him to wipe out the memory of what Perry had just seen. If you slow the film down enough you can see a bright flash just before Perry goes to name the third agency.

Pogo said...

Can't, won't, read Noonan anymore, save for when pointed to by others. Even then, I skim.

Flibbertigibbet, like Megan McCardle.

Both wax eloquent on certain subjects, chock full of data and insight.

But then they vote for Obama.

WTF?

Now every time I start reading a McCardle piece I get two sentences in and then the thought intrudes: Whatever, lady. Blah blah blah free market blah and then you voted for Barry. I should listen to you now because why exactly? Shit.

I can't stand it.

MadisonMan said...

The thing is, Perry's gaffe exposed his campaign as just a series of soundbites and not as something that he really believes.

If you really wanted to axe those three departments, would you forget? I'm not sure.

Tank said...

Mad man is right.

The only candidate who has been talking about these kinds of changes for years and would actually try to make them is ...

Ron Paul.

But, we're told so often that he's batshit crazy that we're not allowed to vote for him.

So we'll get two losers to choose from, and the country is ...

DEAD DEAD DEAD.

DEAD COUNTRY WALKING !

My new motto.

Shouting Thomas said...

Face it, no matter who ends up sitting in the White House in January 2013, we lose.

Face it, Kookie, every time you comment, we lose.

Talk about your blowhards and nitwits.

You are absolutely incapable of any degree of self-awareness.

Rick67 said...

I'll cut Perry a lot of slack for his "brain fart".

I'm a pretty bright fellow (I'll spare people the details of my educational background) and get a lot of strong positive feedback on my speaking/teaching abilities.

*However* I'm not the best at speaking off the cuff (no manuscript or notes) and am known to be in the middle of making a point when my mental train completely derails and I have to ask the audience what on earth was I talking about. Absent minded professor and all that. (Might also be hypostasis - blood pressure drops when standing.)

It's also why I cut Obama some slack for being awful without a teleprompter. (For the record I think he's the worst president I've ever seen.) Some people speak very well - when they've been able to prepare what they're saying ahead of time - but struggle to sound good impromptu.

That having been said Perry *doesn't* do well in debates. My point is simply that a person can be extremely intelligent and well informed - but fall apart without script/notes. Not to say Perry is actually that intelligent!