A Politico headline. I guess they believe in the Superman/Clark Kent concept of extreme makeover. Put glasses on and you're like a completely different guy.
To be fair, Rick Perry had a problem with the "deer in the headlights" look, and glasses could be especially effective for him if they work to tone that down.
२१ एप्रिल, २०१४
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
१२ टिप्पण्या:
At least, Perry's are optically functional, unlike many liberal talking heads who wear glasses merely for effect.
Poliico--an outfit with No Known politcal viewpoint (/sarc off).
Rick Perry is much different than his predecessor. Sadly, not in a good way, although it could have been.
Rick did have a "deer in the headlights" type problem.
Mitt Romney ran over him in the primary debates.
America is the land of second chances. I read that there's even a boomlet for Romney in 2016. At least in Rick Perry's case we don't know (yet) that he's a loser in a presidential election.
Is Nixon the only person in the modern era (since 1900) who was elected president after having been defeated in a run for the presidency? In the 19th century the only one I can think of is Cleveland.
It's true that Romney was very effective against Perry in the debates.
On the merits of their arguments, it's clear Romney was often lying and the press and moderators did a very poor job doing anything about it. For example, Perry criticized Romney for proposing nationalized Romneycare (Obamacare) in Romney's book and op-ed, to which Romney effectively responded (albeit with provable lies).
Perry will have to somehow riposte these sorts of RINO lies better. It's a simple fact that RINOs are often excellent at bashing ocnservatives, and have enormous advantages until they are nominated, at which point the MSM turns on them and the democrat gains the advantage of an easily destroyed Republican candidate.
I am very cautious to go for Perry next round because of his 2012 performance, even though I'm a fan of the guy. I guess I'll take a wait and see approach. Walker is pretty promising, as are a a few other GOP candidates.
"Is Nixon the only person in the modern era (since 1900) who was elected president after having been defeated in a run for the presidency?"
Well, Reagan lost the nomination, however he lost narrowly, whereas all of the conservatives in 2012 lost very badly.
The GOP loves picking last round's loser though (Romney and Mccain are good examples). I can't say that's a good gameplan.
I thought Reagan ran in '76.
It seems as if some are saying "winning the nomination" is the same as running for President.
We know Rick Perry is a loser in a Presidential election because Romney defeated him.
"We know Rick Perry is a loser in a Presidential election because Romney defeated him."
Actually, no. The GOP primary is a mess of a process and quite unlike the general election.
You have to compete for votes with many candidates who largely agree with you, so the MSM can easily scandalize one candidate after another as electability becomes a major factor rather than leadership or experience. Whichever conservative is looking sharpest starts getting hit the hardest in a divide and conquer strategy.
The conservative also has to compete against a corrupt GOP. One of many examples is how the Virginia GOP struck several candidates off the ballot, so Romney (who was not popular in Virginia) could win those delegates. Doing so was ruled unconstitutional, but it was too late. The Virginia leader who made this decision happened to also be moonlighting as a senior Romney campaign staffer. That's corruption, plain and simple.
We will hear this 'Perry lost the primary last time, so it's foolish to think he could succeed at something else' this round, and I am curious if these same people said this of Romney in 2012.
Perry's won a lot of elections, after all. In fact, I think that nomination in '12 was the only one he's ever lost.
If (and that's a big if) Perry can show he learned some hard lessons in '12, maybe we'll have a good presidential candidate.
Perry has run Texas for a long time. Texas is a big state, and the governor has a difficult time due to reconstruction era weaknesses in the governorship there. Perry has proposed and effected widespread cuts in Texas's spending across many agencies, and at the same time services have been good, if not better (funny how taking the bloat out of an agency can make it run better).
I really liked Perry's resume. I was really blown away by how poorly he handled the '12 run. I hope he impresses next round.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9g3Xc8KQ66k
That is everything perfect is.
So, like one V. Lambardia or whatever, where do we begin?
What is our football?
The glasses might help if they make Rick stop saying stupid stuff.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा