[ironknee]

Come on, you know this is going viral

Rick Perry 'Oops' - YouTube

[Big Mac]

There's an "opps" in your thread title there.

[ironknee]

damn!

[hyteckit]

Rick Perry for president.

[Big Mac]

It was embarrassing, but it wasn't nearly as bad as some of the pundits have made it seem.

[Lateralus]

I'm vehemently left-wing, but I can't help but feel sorry for Perry on this. It's the kind of thing that could and does happen to everybody at some point or another, particularly in tense moments. And yeah, as Big Mac said... there are far worse ways to **** up politically; Cain has demonstrated stupidity repeatedly, and tonight Perry merely demonstrated Human.

It's over though. I think if he weren't so desperately trying for some sort of traction, what happened tonight could have been looked over in the long term. But he needed another solid debate performance to capitalize on Cain's current troubles, and the opposite wound up happening.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Lateralus 

I'm vehemently left-wing

Whoa, seriously? You're really good at your mod duties then because I had no clue.

[Lateralus]

Heh. Thank you.

Of all the things I allow to interfere with my moderating, political opinion isn't one of them. I have respect for anybody who cares enough about our system to have a defined position, whichever it may be.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Lateralus 

I'm vehemently left-wing, but I can't help but feel sorry for Perry on this. It's the kind of thing that could and does happen to everybody at some point or another, particularly in tense moments. And yeah, as Big Mac said... there are far worse ways to **** up politically; Cain has demonstrated stupidity repeatedly, and tonight Perry merely demonstrated Human.

It's over though. I think if he weren't so desperately trying for some sort of traction, what happened tonight could have been looked over in the long term. But he needed another solid debate performance to capitalize on Cain's current troubles, and the opposite wound up happening.

I agree, but after watching the Stewart/Bill Clinton interview it is amazing how stark of a contrast there is between Perry and Clinton in terms of how their intellect is conveyed. Clinton seems at least as prepared to debate any of these guys if the debate were to be held right now, and he's not aspiring for anything but attention and relevance which he'll always be able to demand to some extent anyway.

We need more hardcore policy wonks running if we have hopes to fix something as complex as the economy, and fewer rhetoric reciting fluffy headed freaks. A policy wonk probably wouldn't have forgotten something like that.

[subego]

I find it refreshing a politician admitted fault in the moment.

[ghporter]

If these "debates" we're actually debates instead of "show how superior you are" TV contests (sort of like pro wrestling is "wrestling), then Rick would have been discussing a defined issue and would have been able to prepare and have all the facts he wanted fresh in his mind. Instead, these TV events are sideshows and bad attempts at showcasing a particular similarity between the Republican candidates instead of helping differentiate them.

I strongly feel that Rick Perry would be worse as president than he has been as Texas governor. But like Lateralus, I feel sorry that Rick's candidacy is now almost certainly doomed, not becaue he is less slimy than Cain, or more conservative than Romney, but because he couldn't remember details of a plan, which a president would have notes and aides to provide memory help with... This wasn't about Perry's positions, nor about his politics, but about showmanship. Truman was not much of a showman, but he was an excellent president, Eisenhower was a good speaker but not a showman, and he was well respected as president, and frankly, Reagan was a lot less showy than even Nixon, but he is today's Republican ideal for what a president should be...and he made much worse gaffes during his campaign against Carter.

[Big Mac]

You think Cain is slimy, Glenn? Interesting. On what basis - because of the sexual allegations? I don't see him as slimy even knowing of the sexual allegations. I think he's one of the most truly inspirational, and at least seemingly very genuine, candidates in a long time.

As for Rick Perry being a worse prospective president than a Texas governor, that could be, but maybe not. One thing I know with certainty is, he'd be a considerably better president that Barack Obama. Any one of the current candidates would be, even squishy Mitty. We currently have a self-absorbed, ego-manical, petulant, semi-Socialist for a president who, thankfully, isn't even that effective in most things he attempts to do. Nearly anyone the GOP could offer would be better than that.

[OreoCookie]

I found the speech when Perry was intoxicated much worse. Forgetting something can always happen during a freely held speech.

[Big Mac]

I didn't see the alleged intoxication speech yet. I will say, though, that when you say you've got THREE THINGS you're definitely going to cut, you better not forget the third. Three things is a pretty darn short list. Forgetting a list of five things, perhaps. Ten things, certainly. But three? I concede it didn't look good, which is lamentable for Perry because he had a pretty strong performance the rest of the night.

I also think Cain may have had his strongest debate performance yet. He's been displaying most recently an ability to speak substantively on policy issues in a way he wasn't up for before. The Republican establishment wants him out, but I think they're wrong to underestimate him. Cain could also be a formidable VP pick, which some think he's angling for under Romney anyway.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I didn't see the alleged intoxication speech yet.

It's up on youtube.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I will say, though, that when you say you've got THREE THINGS you're definitely going to cut, you better not forget the third.

True, we shouldn't judge politicians by their on-stage performances, but by what they do and (less importantly) what they say they plan to do.

[ghporter]

Cain's completely sloppy handling of the whole sexual harrassment issue has changed my opinion of him from "maybe he has a good idea or two" to "how can you be serious in saying what you're saying?" Stonewalling on the issue, throwing up the only public accuser's past and her lawyer's politics as refutations, and then issuing an absolute statement that he had "never been inappropriate with anyone" are all indications that, even if he was relatively innocent in the issues at hand, he cannot be trusted to handle important issues with any sort of honesty. Instead of saying "I may have been less than professional as a younger executive, though I never intended to be inappropriate," he's saying "it's lies, all lies, and it is because I'm black". Really? I thought it was because you haven't provided any honesty in the discussion of the issue...

Even GWB admitted he'd been a party boy at college, and that he'd behaved very poorly at times. Cain has lowered the issue to one of which side is lying, instead of admitting some humanity. I certainly feel that he is "slimy" because he looks like he's entrenched in a "they are all lies" position, when it is not reasonable to accept that his organization at the time had paid out significant settlements for "lies," when settlements can be easily characterized as reducing the organization's costs in defending him against a potential lawsuit over a "misunderstanding".

[OldManMac]

I'm surprised Perry made it this far, and I'm shocked that there are this many people who support him. The man has no business being on a national stage, not because he forgot something, which we all do, but because he doesn't have a clue.

[The Final Dakar]

If only Perry had Obama's teleprompter at the time, amirite?

[andi*pandi]

I love how Ron Paul is right there with suggestions. There's a man who doesn't forget his message!

[OAW]

It might not have been as bad if Perry hadn't already dropped the ball in the previous debates. Especially that nonsensical answer he gave about Afghanistan. But when you have this on top of those previous performances then it's pretty much a wrap on him. Even if he hangs in there and wins the GOP nomination because he has the campaign money to outlast the increasingly likely Cain implosion ... he'd be toast going up against Obama in the general election.

OAW

[hyteckit]

Stop picking on Rick Perry. He suffers from C.R.S.

Can't Remember Sh*t.

Hehe.. I just saw someone's license plate that says that.

[ironknee]

thanks for whoever adjusted the title

[hyteckit]

So this is why God told Rick Perry to run for president.

For comedy relief. Who knew God has a sense of humor.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

If only Perry had Obama's teleprompter at the time, amirite?

Rick Perry don't need no stinking teleprompter. He has a direct connection to God.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Definitely his "YEEEEEEEAAAARRRRRGHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!" moment.

In this country we like our politicians to be embarrassing knuckleheads while IN office, not while running for office.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Definitely his "YEEEEEEEAAAARRRRRGHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!" moment.

In this country we like our politicians to be embarrassing knuckleheads while IN office, not while running for office.

Perry is finished and IMO, this is a good thing. Newt is the only one I wouldn't have to plug my nose to vote for.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Rick Perry don't need no stinking teleprompter. He has a direct connection to God.

Maybe God understood that the one thing to save Perry's soul was humility.

[andi*pandi]

What will save Michelle Bachman's soul?

[Lateralus]

More corn dogs.

[besson3c]

What are the common complaints with Huntsman?

[OAW]

I don't think there are any major complaints with Huntsman. The problem is that he's much too reasonable and sane to be seriously considered by far right GOP primary voters. And the moderate wing of the GOP has already settled on Romney.

For example, did anyone notice in the latest GOP debate (yeah I do watch them) ... that Huntsman essentially said that if a bank was too big to fail ... it was too big to exist?

CRAMER: Governor... (APPLAUSE)
(inaudible) Italy's too big to fail. It's great. I'd love it if we were independent. It would be terrific to say, "It's your fault. It's your fault. It's your problem." But if this goes, the world banking system could shut down. Doesn't that involve our banks, too?

HUNTSMAN: So we wake up this morning, and we find that the yield curve with respect to Italy is up, and prices are down. So if you want a window into what this country is going to look like in the future if we don't get on top of our debt, you are seeing it playing out in Europe right now.

You are seeing the metastasy (ph) effect of the banking sector. And what does it mean here? What am I most concerned about, Jim? I'm concerned that it impacts us in way that moves into our banking sector where we have got a huge problem called "too big to fail" in this country.

We have six banks in this country that combined have assets worth 66 percent of our nation's GDP, $9.4 trillion. These institutions get hit. They have an implied bailout by the taxpayers in this country, and that means that we are setting ourselves up for disaster again.

Jim, as long as we have banks that are "too big to fail" in this country, we are going to catch the contagion and it's going to hurt us. We have got to get back to a day and age where we have properly sized banks and financial institutions.

And then later on .....

HUNTSMAN: With respect to the banks that are too big to fail, you know today we've got, as I mentioned earlier, six institutions that are equal to 60, 65 percent of our GDP, $9.4 trillion. They have an implied guarantee by the taxpayers that they will be protected. That's not fair, that's not right for the taxpayers.

HARWOOD: So you break them up?

HUNTSMAN: I say we need to right-size them. I say, in the 1990s, you had Goldman Sachs, for example. That was $200 billion in size. By 2008, it had grown to $1.1 trillion in size. Was that good for the people of this country, or --
HARWOOD: Well, how would you accomplish that? How would you right-size that?

(CROSSTALK)

HUNTSMAN: I think we ought to set up some sort of fund. I think we ought to charge some sort of fee from the banks that mitigates the risk that otherwise the taxpayers are carrying. There has got to be something that takes the risk from the taxpayers off the table so that these institutions don't go forward with this implied assumption that we're going to bail them out at the end of the day. That's not right, and it's not fair for the taxpayers of this country.

GOP DEBATE: FULL TRANSCRIPT FROM CNBC

Now the original version of the Dodd-Frank bill called for exactly this type of fund in order to do this ... paid for by the financial industry ... and the GOP forced it to be stripped from the bill. And ever since the watered down version of Dodd-Frank was passed, the GOP has been steadfast in its opposition to the Obama administration's repeated calls for placing such a "Financial Crisis Responsibility Fee" on the biggest banks because it's beholden to Grover Norquist's "anti-tax" pledge. And of course the GOP wouldn't even dream of breaking up these mega-sized financial institutions because only "big government" is ever a problem .... "big banks" with the capacity to tank the global economy is just dandy.

Ronald Reagan couldn't get past a modern day GOP presidential primary. Jon Huntsman is much too rational to stand a snowball's chance in hell.

OAW

[The Final Dakar]

You know he's irrelevant if no one has accused him of being anti-capatilist or socialist or whatever.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

You know he's irrelevant if no one has accused him of being anti-capatilist or socialist or whatever.

Indeed. When he says these things he receives polite applause by the GOP debate crowd. But when Obama says the same thing he gets called all that stuff. Imagine that.

OAW

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

What are the common complaints with Huntsman?

Too liberal. Served as ambassador in the Obama Administration. He's a good speaker and has some strong points to make, especially on our economic competitiveness against China going forward, but he's not a serious candidate for the Republican nomination.

Here's my takeaway from tonight's CBS debate. Firstly, all of the Republican candidates have been made better, sharper candidates through this primary process (with the exception, perhaps, of Ron Paul, who is nearly always consistent with his stances and presentation). Romney's still the front runner and is quite good at the craft. Cain has gotten more substantive as of late and fielded some questions quite strongly with specifics, although on certain questions he didn't have specific policy formulations other than to confer with his staff, which some will perceive as him not grasping the issues. Perry had a decent performance tonight, but if he wants to regain momentum he'll need some breakthrough. Gingrich does well, he may be a little too wonky and not flashy enough, but he can definitely hold his own in any debate. Bachmann sounded very presidential to me tonight, but barring an upset in her favor I don't think she has the strength to capture the nomination from the more established candidates. Santorum had another strong performance but right now is an also ran like Bachmann. Huntsman I already mentioned. Paul is the most consistent, and the pure libertarian side of me wants him just as a domestic president, but his foreign policy is extreme on nearly every point and makes him look out to lunch.

[Lateralus]

Guys like Huntsman, in a nutshell, are the entire reason this country needs a viable third party; he fits into neither party well enough to succeed but is nevertheless an excellent, studious candidate who deserves a shot at the nomination far more than rhetoric-machines like Bachmann.

[Big Mac]

I honestly don't think Bachmann's a rhetoric machine, although I can't fault you for seeing her that way because she's come across like that up until recently in this campaign. IMO she was actually pretty effective in rising above rhetoric and underscoring some key distinctions that make her presidential, but it's most likely too little too late for her. (And she also suffers from the Palin Effect.)

As for viable third parties, our presidential system is setup for two strong parties, especially with winner take all states. If we had something closer to a parliamentary system and proportional representation, there would be many more parties in the mix, but we don't have that (for better or worse).

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Too liberal. Served as ambassador in the Obama Administration. He's a good speaker and has some strong points to make, especially on our economic competitiveness against China going forward, but he's not a serious candidate for the Republican nomination.

I guess this answers the question about as well as it could be answered, but I thought Romney was too liberal too, yet he's the front runner?

There will always be more moderate voters than vehemently ideological ones like yourself (and probably myself too), so I don't think that "too moderate" is necessarily a weakness.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I guess this answers the question about as well as it could be answered, but I thought Romney was too liberal too, yet he's the front runner?

There will always be more moderate voters than vehemently ideological ones like yourself (and probably myself too), so I don't think that "too moderate" is necessarily a weakness.

Right, we'll you've basically recognized the overall point. Huntsman is a Republican. He holds Republican views on many issues. But he's too liberal for this race. Working for the current administration puts a big target on his back that's hard to deal with. And like you said, Romney has maintained a stable lead throughout, but there's only room for one Romney in the current Republican field. If Romney had decided not to run this time, maybe Huntsman would be occupying his position.

[ironknee]

rick perry thanked God+cain this week for shul