Texas Toast: Put A Fork in Rick Perry

The most uncomfortable 53 seconds in Presidential debate history last night has effectively ended the stumbling, bumbling campaign of Texas governor Rick Perry.

He’ll continue for awhile, but to rip off Meatloaf’s hit song, “Two Out Of Three IS Bad”. Perry boldly declared that he would eliminate three federal agencies—then couldn’t think of the third one. Especially devastating since the omission was the Energy Department---especially curious coming from the governor whose state is the one of the largest energy producers and whose entire jobs platform revolves around energy.

Oops.

If you haven’t seen a campaign unravel before your eyes yet, check this out:




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUA2rDVrmNg

“Not ready for prime time” was a label often attached to a man who was said to be weak in the debate forum, but the actual problem is much deeper.

Stripped of campaign slogans and rehearsed lines, it is abundantly clear that Perry is almost incapable of articulating specific policies or explaining complex issues without getting confused. Being a poor debater in my view relates to the repartee where candidates can spar with each other. Being slow on the uptake when challenged or unable to respond appropriately to an attack are the hallmarks of a poor debater.

Perry doesn’t need an opponent or a debate setting to look like an idiot. He can do that all on his own. His fatal flaw is an inability to communicate----a real liability for a job that requires expert communication skills above all else. (see: George W. Bush) That’s the best case scenario. The worst case scenario is that he may just not have the intellectual capacity for the job.

To be fair, everyone has had a “brain freeze”. Who among us has had their train of thought get derailed?. It happens to me multiple times daily—and seems to have increased with age. With an error that is so human—and so common, perhaps we are all being too harsh on Rick Perry. I may be, but, then again, I am not running for President—and politics will expose every Achilles heel.

Mitt Romney’s failed bid in 2008 was the education he needed to look so (comparably) good in 2012’s race. He seems relaxed, has a great command of facts and specifics and has displayed both humor (self deprecating) and deference to his opponents this time around---increasing his stature as “Presidential”—that nebulous quality that no one can define, but all of us can identify when it’s either there—or missing.

In fact, the demeanor and countenance of the Republican prospects is the major factor in their standings—in my opinion.

Here’s how they stack up to me:

Mitt Romney-looks confident and competent, “presidential”

Rick Perry-good-looking, appears “presidential”-- until he opens his mouth. Check him out when the camera is on him while other candidates are speaking. There seems to me to be a mixture of envy and admiration for the way other hopefuls can articulate points that he himself cannot.


Herman Cain-looks confident and speaks well-and plainly-very appealing to the conservative base because Cain has a way of simplifying complex ideas.—his other troubles will sink him, however. His lack of knowledge on the most basic of facts (for instance that China has nukes) will make even staunch Republicans realize that he is not up to the task. He too, is now all but done.

John Huntsman-has the credentials, speaks well and conducts himself in a “presidential” manner---HOWEVER, he has a way of speaking that seems a tad patronizing. His mannerisms bother me and remind me of John Edwards-a bit “holier-than-thou”


Newt Gingrich-Probably the smartest of them all—and will be the first to tell you so. His sneering contempt for the media and combative stance makes for great theatre, but his “intellectual” image—carefully cultivated in the way he dismisses the ideas of those who don’t agree with him—is both arrogant and uncomely for the leader of the free world. He is, at his core, a grouchy old man who missed his shot years ago. His deft avoidance of the $300,000 paid to him by Fannie Mae last night as “advice by me they didn’t take” was just the tip of a corrupt iceberg that would be red meat for the media should he ever rise to the level of frontrunner. There is no one the White House would rather run against than Newt---and Republicans know it. He cannot be the nominee.

Michelle Bachman-definitely smart, but like Cain, has been left short-handed at times when facts are demanded of her. There is a wild-eyed look about her at times that makes her appear a tad crazy. Unfair, but don’t you see it too?


Rick Santorum- not one ounce of “presidential” in him, unfortunately. While he should be a front runner based on experience, conservative positions and his staunch faith, he is not. His ever-present $&^@-eating grin makes him appear more like the 4-H kid whose cow won a blue ribbon at the State Fair than a serious Presidential candidate. Most of his opportunities to speak focus on bragging about his past accomplishments than in framing a vision for the future. His numerous compliments to Newt Gingrich border on hero-worship and makes one wonder whether he secretly thinks Newt is more qualified than himself.

Ron Paul-While he has some very important things to say, his radical views on everything from the economy to the military make him unelectable. I think he was far more effective in the 2008 campaign. This year, he looks like the “Crazy Uncle” that Ross Perot referred to in his failed presidential bid years ago. Not a factor any longer.


So, Republican leaders who don’t like Romney’s conservative credentials—may need to “hold their nose” and make Mitt their standard-bearer.

No one else in the field can weather the storm. Romney has a chance to win—and to Republicans, removing President Obama from the White House is worth putting ANYONE else in there…including the former Governor of Massachusetts.


If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@cumulus.com