

As I watched the debate Wednesday night between the eight Republican presidential primary opponents, I was overall pleased, both by the way the candidates handled themselves and by the answers they gave to the myriad of economic questions they were asked. It was a debate that I personally think all Republicans won, and while many like myself may think that Perry is finished, the ultimate loser was CNBC. CNBC lost because they could not make the Republican candidates act like a bunch of toddlers fighting over the only toy in the room. The moderators tried their best to get any of the candidates to admit that taxes must be raised to save the economy, but to no avail. All the candidates agreed that raising taxes would be the worst move a president could do. Instead they all called for taxes to be cut, spending to be reduced, and various agencies to be eliminated along with repealing Obamacare.
The moderators also tried to get Cain to stumble in defending himself over the sexual harassment charges against him. That made the audience erupt in boos, expressing their disdain for the question. After Cain answered the question, the moderators tried to lure Romney into the trap of attacking Cain when he was asked if he would hire a man with accusations hanging over his head like Cain. Again the audience booed the question, but Romney would have none of it as he refused to even consider the question. Finally the moderator decided to get back to the economic questions and the charges against Cain were not brought up again.
As for the soundbite or incident the MSM is always looking for so they can ignore talking about the substance of the debate, Perry was gracious enough to give them one. Now as much as I would like to say that the soundbite the MSM is using of Perry is irrelevant to the overall primary race, this time the soundbite is very relevant. The stumble by Perry will go down in history as the final shot that sunk his presidential bid. What makes it so devastating is the fact that he forgot a major part of his economic plan that he was hoping would revive his already faltering campaign. Perry forgot one of the federal agencies he would cut if elected president. While answering a question about the federal tax code, Perry announced that he would eliminate three agencies. What follows is a truncated transcript of the exchange between Perry and the moderator, John Harwood. Below that I have the video clip of Perry's flub
Transcript of Rick Perry's Brain Freeze
|
|
"Rick Perry's Debate Brain Freeze Moment" |
Look, as much as I personally think this should not be a bad thing for Perry, it is. It is because he is already slipping in the polls due to his other bad debate performances. With Gingrich rising in the polls and Cain remaining on top even with the sexual harassment charges against him. Perry could not afford to have another bad debate performance. Republican voters are looking for a person that will meet Obama face to face and destroy him in a debate. Not some guy we think is nice, and sharp looking, but will then fold under the pressure when the MSM starts their anal exam after every debate between Obama and the Republican challenger.
For me, I think Gingrich won this debate like he has won each and every one he has been in. Romney came in a strong second with Herman Cain and Ron Paul right on his heals. As for Huntsman, Bachmann, and Santorum they were maybe tied for fourth in my opinion. Maybe it's because I can no longer take them as serious candidates due to the fact that they are not going to win. However, Rick Perry admitted it himself that he stepped in it, and again he has shown that he cannot debate. So can Perry clean his mess up or not? The way I see it, unless a miracle happens where all of a sudden he becomes the reincarnation of the great communicator, Ronald Reagan, he is finished. I think it's time to put a fork in him and If he was your choice, then I think you should start looking for a different conservative to support before Romney takes it all.

Another thing about Perry. Like Bush before him, everyone is under the impression that he has been able to accomplish a lot of good things for Texas. However when you consider the power structure in Texas you need to understand that the Texas governors office does not carry a lot of power. The reason for this is based upon the historical fact that following the American Revolution, the memories of colonial abuses led many states to significantly limit the powers of their governors. After the Civil War, the Southern states were ruled with an iron hand during Reconstruction. The result ended up that most former confederate states weakened the governors power even more. Today, the governors office in Texas is actually one of the weakest is in the nation.
Now the Texas governor does have veto power, but the way they get things accomplished in Texas is to have a agreement before the bill is ever sent to the governor to sign. It works well when you take into consideration the way the governor can usually work with his opponents across the isle, something George Bush realized he could not do in DC. So like his predecessors, Perry is not used to forcing the legislature to follow his lead. Usually the leading in Texas comes from the state legislature. So don't expect to find a strong willed individual coming from the governors office in Texas, because Texas has a governor whose role, by constitutional design, is to be a relatively feeble public servant.
When George Bush went to Washington he learned quickly that he could not work with the Democrats like he could in Texas, so when he lost congress, he caved in and signed everything they sent to his desk. Mark my words, if Rick Perry becomes president he will be another Bush, and that is not what we need in the oval office. We have a lot of problems to fix, and unless we get a strong personality that can overpower his opponents, America will continue to suffer economically. Think about it, do you really want a man who cannot stand up to the pressure of a debate to be going up against the Democrats and the MSM when it comes time to cut taxes, fix Social Security, or eliminate the departments of Commerce, Education, and Energy as he claims he will do?
Let me add one more point and then I will never mention Perry's bad moment at last night's debate again. I have yet to decide who my candidate is, if Perry survives this and becomes the nominee I will wholeheartedly support him against Obama. As I will with any candidate, other than Romney. For now though, I am of the opinion that Perry is finished. He has after all been his worse enemy and if he does lose as I think he will, he has no one but himself to blame.

As much as conservatives may want someone other than Romney to take the nomination, I'm afraid that isn't going to happen. We got a group of conservatives that weren't ready for prime time this year, while Romney went through the gauntlet in 2008. This is his to lose.
I'm sure Gingrich will be the new flavor of the month but as we all know, his problem is he's had one too many wives.
Like it or not, expect Romney and Obama in November.
You make a good point, but you are figuring off national polls. The primary will be decided upon state polls. Not a national poll. Romney has never won a Southern state, until he does I am not convinced he will be the candidate.
We will learn soon enough however, because after Iowa's caucus on January 3rd, and the New Hampshire primary on January 10th, South Carolina will have theirs on the 21st followed by the Florida primary on the 31st.
If Romney wins either of those Southern primaries, then I will concede that he could be the nominee. Until then I am not convinced Romney can win it.
By the way. Are you related to my late friend Bernie Richter?