Perry says it was ‘mistake’ to participate in Debates

[Crossroads Inc.]

From Yahoo News

Many political observers agree that Rick Perry's dismal debate performances have helped spark his dramatic collapse in recent polls. Now, not surprisingly, the Republican presidential hopeful insists his biggest mistake in the campaign so far was agreeing to participate in the forums at all.

"These debates are set up for nothing more than to tear down the candidates. It's pretty hard to be able to sit and lay out your ideas and your concepts with a one-minute response," the Texas governor told Fox News's Bill O'Reilly. "So, you know, if there was a mistake made, it was probably ever doing one of the [debates], when all they're interested in is stirring up between the candidates instead of really talking about the issues that are important to the American people."

But Perry also conceded he had made mistakes during the debates, including when he said critics of a push he led in Texas to allow the children of illegal immigrants to attend state colleges and universities at in-state tuition rates did not "have a heart."

"I used the wrong word there," Perry admitted.

The governor largely used the appearance to trash his opponent Mitt Romney, essentially admitting there is no love lost between the two. Asked about tension between the two, Perry at first insisted he didn't know if "there's a strain."

But it didn't take long for Perry to twist the knife, admitting that he and Romney don't quite see eye to eye.

There's certainly a difference of opinion about philosophically where you stand,'' Perry said. "I mean, you can't change from one election to another."

Asked if he "likes" Romney, Perry didn't quite answer and used the question to again hit his rival as a flip-flopper.

"You can't be for banning guns and then all of a sudden you're, you know, for the Second Amendment. You can't be for the issue of abortion, then you're pro-life," Perry said. "How do you change at the age of 50 or 60 positions on life, positions on guns, positions on traditional marriage. I mean those aren't minor issues . . . . So to change those at the age of 50 or 60 tells you all you need to know about that."

On the one hand, he does have a point, modern debates are largerly used as nothing more then a platform to tear down other candidates and bad mouth the sitting president. There is little to no actual "Debating" going on these days.

That said, on the "What where they thinking" side of news... One has to ask, how can he hounestly consider himself a contender if he can't stand up to the barbs, jabs, and quick thinking needed for TV debates these days?

[Lagmonster]

The idea that a president needs to be witty on impulse actually bugs me. I like a charismatic person, and I know why I like a charismatic person, but the non-ape part of me remembers that we're selecting a leader, not a game show host. I would prefer a leader who thinks quickly in the sense that they can reasonably assess a shitload of complicated information in a short period of time. Not someone who comes off as the combined reincarnation of Groucho Marx and Jesus.

[Simon_Jester]

One thing to remember is that the round of debates we've been seeing among the Republican candidates come across as a grenade-throwing contest because that's a big part of the dynamic in this election cycle. They're running as the Opposition To Obama, and any policy proposals they make are secondary to the Not Obama factor. So the Republicans candidates are competing for a "Least Like Obama" trophy, which means a candidate spends a lot of time denouncing Obama and denouncing each other for being... less unlike Obama than themselves.

If the Republicans weren't pursuing a strategy of flinging rhetorical bombs, their candidates wouldn't be complaining about how they kept getting blown up.

Also, this is one of the consequences of a wide field of candidates- you've got about six to eight people trying seriously to compete for the nomination, many of them the sort of relatively low-profile individual who'd be a "dark horse" candidate in a more ordinary election. Of course there's a lot of ugly brawling among the candidates; any given candidate's chance of victory hinges on being able to slip knives into the back of the others.

[Chirios]

The idea that a president needs to be witty on impulse actually bugs me.

Not witty, but he does need to be able to communicate his point of view and, more importantly, convince you that even if you don't agree, he's still thought about the subject and considered other ideas. If you notice, a president is as much advertiser as he is a leader.

[Patrick Degan]

A presidential candidate needs to demonstrate that he can think on his feet and Perry failed miserably at this. Not surprising, really; Texas politics has become its own little bubble-reality in which debate forums are mere formalities and elections fall to whomever has the biggest treasury. Perry was trying to be a little fish in a vast ocean and he got lost. Despite what they may believe about themselves, Texas Republicans really aren't ready for the national stage, and a lot of them really shouldn't be allowed out in public without supervision, as Louis Gohmert (R-Crazy) continually demonstrates in Congress.

[Block]

The idea that a president needs to be witty on impulse actually bugs me.

Not witty, but he does need to be able to communicate his point of view and, more importantly, convince you that even if you don't agree, he's still thought about the subject and considered other ideas. If you notice, a president is as much advertiser as he is a leader.

Problem is these debates weren't about communicating points of view, it was about jumping on whoever the perceived leader was with both feet and trying to play gotcha. He's somewhat right that going to these debates was a mistake mostly because allowing this many debates was a mistake on the part of the RNC. All of the candidates from their side look like morons.

[Guardsman Bass]

I still think they serve some useful purposes, although not as a test of whether or not a candidate is good presidential material:

1. They allow trailing candidates to get free publicity, and a chance to hit at the leading candidates without having to spend X millions of dollars on TV ads.

2. They put the candidates in a position where they have to answer questions. They can't hide behind their press secretaries, or only do friendly events.

In Rick Perry's case, there was no way he could realistically avoid the debates altogether. It would have become an issue if he hadn't shown - "What is Rick Perry afraid of? Why is he hiding from questions?" You can almost imagine Mitt Romney saying something like, "I'd love to ask Governor Perry about this, but he's not here."

[Simon_Jester]

Debates are fine insofar as they require a candidate to stand up on their hind legs and explain their views.

I don't want to see Herman Cain's press secretary issue another canned speech on his 9-9-9; I want to see him pinned down and asked point blank how he expects it to work and why he isn't worried about the effect of a 10% increase in the cost of consumer goods. Or how he picked those numbers.

I want to see Romney explain Romneycare- because he should have to explain it, either by convincing Republicans it's OK to support public health care, or by admitting that it's impossible for a national Republican to do what he himself did on the state level.

I want to see, for that matter, Obama himself forced to explain why he worked so hard for the banks in 2009-10, what his views on Occupy Wall Street are in light of his old "Wall Street vs. Main Street" rhetoric now, and so on.

Canned speeches full of happy generalities aren't good enough for that, and they're no better at selecting a politician who's full of substance and good ideas and intelligence than listening to the candidate's own views would be.

I still think they serve some useful purposes, although not as a test of whether or not a candidate is good presidential material:

1. They allow trailing candidates to get free publicity, and a chance to hit at the leading candidates without having to spend X millions of dollars on TV ads.

2. They put the candidates in a position where they have to answer questions. They can't hide behind their press secretaries, or only do friendly events.

In Rick Perry's case, there was no way he could realistically avoid the debates altogether. It would have become an issue if he hadn't shown - "What is Rick Perry afraid of? Why is he hiding from questions?" You can almost imagine Mitt Romney saying something like, "I'd love to ask Governor Perry about this, but he's not here."

Again, I think the situation is worse for the Republicans this election cycle because they have so many candidates and because of their strategy of "I'm Not Obama!" versus "I'm Even More Not Obama!"

If there were a couple of front-runners plus a spray of lesser candidates, the front-runners could probably get by without so much mud-slinging and look less foolish. If the Republicans were in a good position to present specific policy proposals that could win them the election, they'd be able to accentuate the positive more.

But as it is, they're all squabbling over what amounts to a negative achievement (least like Obama), like lobsters in a pot.

[Patrick Degan]

Um... This really must be seen to be believed. Slick Rick Perry in New Hampshire:



I mean, he's starting to descend to the Michelle Bachmann level of stupid.

[Patrick Degan]

And the descent turns into free-fall:

Perry to GOP: I could handle Obama in debate

By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press – 7 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — Rick Perry on Sunday sought to reassure GOP primary voters concerned about his wobbly presidential debate performances, saying he would draw sharp distinctions with the Democratic incumbent in televised showdowns next year.

"I'm not worried a bit that I'll be able to stand on the stage with Barack Obama and draw a very bright line," Perry said.

The Texas governor, driving for front-runner status as the most viable conservative in the wide-open field, offered up samples of the scathing rhetoric he uses against the president, from the economy to war policy and personal credibility.

Perry also defended his voluntary flat-tax proposal and the notion that it could bring in trillions of dollars less in revenue than the current tax code.

"There's nothing wrong with lower revenue," he said. "I don't want more revenue in Washington, D.C.'s hands. I want more revenue in the private sector job creators' hands."

The tough talk came as Perry manages the fallout from his debate performances and all of the GOP candidates fight to lead the pack in Iowa just two months before the first voting of 2012 begins there.

There is no clear leader in that contest. A Des Moines Register poll on Saturday showed former Godfather's Pizza CEO Herman Cain at the head of the pack, with the support of 23 percent of respondents. Ex-Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney was next with 22 percent.

Perry, who rated just 7 percent in that survey, has taken a particularly steep fall since announcing his candidacy in August, struggling through parts of five debates and dogged especially by Romney.

How, he was asked on "Fox News Sunday," would he perform against the erudite Obama in a general election next year?

What counts, Perry said, is how a candidate would govern.

"We got a great debater, a smooth politician in the White House right now, that's not working really good for America," Perry said.

Perry plans to attend of the debates now scheduled in November as well as a December one. "With as many debates as we got coming up, I may end up being a pretty good debater before it's all been said and done," he said.

On Iraq and Afghanistan, Perry accused Obama of pursuing an "aimless foreign policy" by making big decisions without adequately considering the advice of his commanders. He said the president has endangered Americans on the ground by announcing that U.S. troops would leave Iraq by year's end.

"He has lost his standing from the standpoint of being a commander in chief who has any idea about what's going on in those theaters," Perry said.

On the leading domestic issue, Perry said the president has "taken an experiment with the American economy and turned it into absolute Frankenstein experience."

Cain piled on the president, too.

"A responsible commander in chief" would have done more to seek out the counsel of the military's ground commanders before agreeing to pull all troops out of Iraq, Cain said. Doing that leaves a "power vacuum," he added.

"It also leaves it unclear as to how we are going to deal with other nations," Cain said on CBS' "Face the Nation."

The U.S. deadline to pull troops out by the end of 2011 was originally set by President George W. Bush. Obama decided to move ahead with the plan after Washington and Baghdad couldn't agree on the conditions for keeping a small contingent of U.S. troops behind to train Iraqi forces.

For his part, the president has mostly stayed out of the GOP nomination fight.

"I'm going to wait until everyone is voted off the island," he told "Tonight Show" host Jay Leno earlier in the week.

But a top adviser, David Plouffe, went after Romney, the early front-runner in the race. Plouffe, who managed Obama's 2008 campaign, said Romney has "moved all over the place" on issues from abortion to gay marriage over his career and might not have firm enough convictions to make the tough decisions as president.

"You get the sense with Mitt Romney that if he thought it was good to say the sky was green and the grass was blue, to win an election, he'd say it," Plouffe said on NBC's "Meet the Press."

It's not yet clear which of the Republicans might survive the nomination fight. While Cain "seems to have tapped into something," Plouffe said he found it interesting that "Romney continues to have 75, 80 percent of his party looking somewhere else, and so it'll be interesting to see if he can turn that around."

The Romney campaign shot back by saying Obama "can't run on his abysmal economic record and he is desperate to distract from the historic loss of middle-class jobs that has occurred on his watch. Americans won't be fooled by false and negative attacks."

Republicans in Iowa aren't leaning toward any one candidate, even though Romney's essentially been running for president since losing in the state in 2008.

Despite his showing in the Iowa poll, Cain trails both Romney and Perry in fundraising by the millions.

Perry is starting to focus on Iowa with a new ad, and on Sunday, he hit Romney for being on both sides of debates over gun control, abortion and gay rights.

"I have been a consistent conservative," Perry said. "I don't get confused with just telling the truth."

Copyright © 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Slick Rick Perry v. Barack Obama on a debate stage.... For some reason, the image of a five-year old with a pea shooter challenging a tank platoon springs to mind.