Open thread: The “Perry’s last chance” debate

posted at 7:41 pm on October 11, 2011 by Allahpundit

8 p.m. ET on, er, Bloomberg TV. Don’t get Bloomberg as part of your cable package? No problem: They’re livestreaming the debate right here. (If you don’t like that feed, there should be one somewhere on WaPo’s Post Politics page too.) The good news for Perry is that he doesn’t have to worry about immigration or Gardasil. They’ll spend the full two hours on the economy so he’ll have ample time to talk Texas and jobs. The bad news is that he’s one more catastrophic gaffe away from convincing everyone that he’s an irredeemably bad bet. If it happens tonight, wealthy donors who are leery of Romney’s squishiness will throw in the towel and back Mitt on electability grounds and grassroots conservatives who are leery of Cain’s inexperience will throw in the towel and back “Herb” as a charismatic “true conservative” who can galvanize the base. (No wonder Pawlenty’s now second-guessing himself for quitting.) In fact, if you believe lefty pollster PPP, it’s already come to this:

The other notable thing in these numbers is how much Rick Perry’s image has tanked in the last month. Only 23% of voters now have a favorable opinion of him to 57% with a negative one. That -34 favorability spread is worse than the -30 we found for Sarah Palin at 32/62 the last time we polled on her nationally, in August. He’s at an amazingly bad 16/62 with independents. Obama can only hope that Perry makes some sort of comeback in the next few months- it may be his only path to reelection.

If that’s true — and I find it hard to believe that it is — he’s already finished. Even if it’s not, I’m not sure a good debate tonight will be enough to restore him to co-frontrunner status with Romney. His team’s operating theory is that the surge for Cain right now is mainly an expression of doubt about Perry after his first few debates. Calm their fears with a solid performance, the theory goes, and those voters will come back, however grudgingly. I’m skeptical that that’s true given Cain’s personal appeal; I’m also skeptical that a major gaffe by Cain would hurt him as much as it would the other candidates. His whole argument, after all, is that D.C. needs a total outsider to shake things up. An outsider’s naturally going to have rough edges and an occasional knowledge gap on policy; that’s the proof that they’re an authentic populist, not some slick double-talking professional politician. As such, Cain’s margin of error is much wider than Perry’s, so even if he bungles something tonight it won’t take him out of the race. To really hurt himself he’d have to do something exceptionally stupid, like … accusing his supporters of being “heartless.”

Charlie Rose, the moderator, told Scarborough this morning that he’ll ask the field about Occupy Wall Street, so look out for that. I assume he’ll also break from the economic focus for at least a few minutes to put Perry on the spot about Jeffress and Mormonism since Romney and Christie went after him for it during this afternoon’s presser. (Perry’s son did some damage control this evening on his behalf before the debate.) Beyond that, much to my surprise, Cain said this afternoon that he’s going to go after Romney tonight instead of Perry. I thought he and Mitt might have some sort of informal alliance against Perry since he’s the chief obstacle for both of them — for Romney an obstacle to the nomination, and for Cain an obstacle to the title of tea-party champion — but maybe Cain’s now thinking seriously about the nomination too. He’s second in Iowa, just three points behind Romney, which is enough of a dogfight to encourage Mitt to visit the state again soon. I’d still be shocked if he hits him hard tonight but the mere possibility is reason enough to watch.

Here’s the handy Hot Air/Townhall Twitter widget to keep track of our updates. While we wait, read Robert Costa’s terrific tick-tock of how Bachmann’s campaign collapsed in Iowa. Or, if you prefer video, go watch Rush Limbaugh uttering a terrible, terrible truth on today’s show. Something needs to change, soon. Second look at Pawlenty?

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 19 20 21

If/When Romney is elected, how are we to tell the Disney Animatronic version in the Hall of Presidents apart from the real one…?

JohnTant on October 12, 2011 at 8:04 AM

The real Romney is a bit fuzzy on the pixelation…

Odie1941 on October 12, 2011 at 9:40 AM

Yes.
It used to be all about the Palin. When she decided to do the right thing a few here were left directionless.
Without their leader to bark out orders…they don’t know what to do.

annoyinglittletwerp on October 12, 2011 at 8:35 AM

Well, frankly, those of us who hoped that Palin would get in are taking another look at the candidates available. Pretty straightforward – I don’t think it requires your insulting spin.

I am not impressed by Perry. I had never seen him speak or debate prior to his announcement and I am not sure that he has the fire in the belly, nor the intellect be president. Sorry. I really liked Mitt Romney last time around and, up until last night, I really hoped that he wouldn’t win the nomination. There is something to be said for the guy who wants to be president, who feels he has something to offer. We’ve lost 3 good people who could have run solid campaigns (Ryan, Daniels, and Palin) in this go-round due to a lack of desire to actually run. I really like Herman Cain, and he will get my vote if he’s still in the game next year, but I see him as more of a VP this time. He doesn’t explain his thought process and I find that a little worrisome in terms of being a “fly by the seat of his pants” kind of guy. Not that it’s bad, we just have problems on so many fronts, I worry about someone having to learn on the job. Again. Who he would surround himself with as advisers is very important for him to convey.

Newt is a wildcard, though I get a great deal of pleasure thinking of him in the Oval Office calling out congress as a bunch of idiots, and rightly so. President Newt has an endearing ring to it.

piglet on October 12, 2011 at 9:41 AM

You saying such a thing really makes me wonder about you.

Badger40 on October 12, 2011 at 9:30 AM

Pal, if we went back and took apart your postings, we wouldn’t have to wonder about you…normally it’s the ideas that are expressed, details get lost in the quick exchange. Take it easy…

right2bright on October 12, 2011 at 9:42 AM

right2bright on October 12, 2011 at 9:21 AM

Romney can portray Obama as an amateur who stole blueprints he didn’t understand, who tried to make them work for the entire country when the were designed for one state.

Buy Danish on October 12, 2011 at 9:32 AM

I don’t think that’s an effective way to explain it. He’s doing the right thing by stating he will sign an EO with waivers for all 50 states and sign a repeal if it gets through congress.

piglet on October 12, 2011 at 9:43 AM

Bradky on October 12, 2011 at 9:39 AM

Put the boogeyman back in the closet, I don’t plan to vote for him.

Cindy Munford on October 12, 2011 at 9:48 AM

Badger40 on October 12, 2011 at 9:32 AM

Who is it that you think could make the change?

Cindy Munford on October 12, 2011 at 9:51 AM

Jason Coleman, just a quick question (absolutely not meant as any sort of jab or insult), do you work for the Cain campaign in some sort of official capacity?

preallocated on October 12, 2011 at 3:59 AM

Nope, not at all. Would be kinda strange to defend Perry if I did.

I’m just a Republican without a candidate at the moment, who’s looking as objectively as I can at what the candidates are offering. Our volunteer time and cash is up for grabs.

I’m pretty sick and tired of the majority of arguments offered by “supporters” as consisting of little more than misrepresentation, ad hominem attacks and extreme double standards.

Of which, this one takes the cake ‘o the day.

As for confidential fed picks, you notice no one else answered that question. Romney offered up a dead man to the same question.

He offered up a beloved dead man who could make a pretty strong case for economic freedom. Herman Cain offered nothing which is understandable since he is not in this to win.

This seems to be the level of discourse we find at hotair and many other sites this go round, it’s a mortal sin for the opposition to not answer a question, but if our guy not only doesn’t answer it, but provides and absurd response, it’s laudable.

I’ll say without much reservation that I’m fairly ashamed at my fellow Republican travelers this cycle.

Jason Coleman on October 12, 2011 at 10:05 AM

What are Mitt’s positions on the issues this week?

SurferDoc on October 12, 2011 at 10:14 AM

I don’t think that’s an effective way to explain it. He’s doing the right thing by stating he will sign an EO with waivers for all 50 states and sign a repeal if it gets through congress.

piglet on October 12, 2011 at 9:43 AM

See the pandering?
If it gets through congress, and the president can make things “happen” to see that it doesn’t.
He won’t change a thing, and of course he will signthe waiver bill, the courts will make sure of that.
He can’t just sign away a bill, and he knows that, but he states that he will…pandering at it’s best.

right2bright on October 12, 2011 at 10:36 AM

piglet on October 12, 2011 at 9:41 AM

I like your comments. My snark was directed at you and those like you-it was directed at those like unseen and idesign.

annoyinglittletwerp on October 12, 2011 at 10:39 AM

I was not trying to encourage you, O obsessed one. I have enough Trolls on both websites that carry my blog.

kingsjester on October 12, 2011 at 8:18 AM

Then I guess you’ll cease leaving links to your lame blog.

csdeven on October 12, 2011 at 12:01 PM

I don’t think that’s an effective way to explain it. He’s doing the right thing by stating he will sign an EO with waivers for all 50 states and sign a repeal if it gets through congress.
piglet on October 12, 2011 at 9:43 AM

He’s already doing that. But people like Allahpundit seem to think there’s he’s been caught with some smoking gun in his hand because Jonathan Grubman visited the White House and handed over the blueprints for the State of Massachusetts to Obama.

Buy Danish on October 12, 2011 at 12:10 PM

This is the reasoning that continues to give us $hitty candidates.

The best candidates wont run, because they can’t beat Obama. AND puritanical ideological rigidity discourages perfectly capable candidates from running because they are viciously attacked for not being perfect. Reagan would be rejected today by some of these people.

Since people are sheep, and ignorant & willfully stupid, the candidate with the most $$ can win.
That does not mean that person is going to change the status quo.
This reasoning, if adopted early on during the War of 1812, the Rev0lutionary War, would have caused us to lose.
And you’d be taking your tea time everyday & speaking with a British accent.
Sometimes you have to battle the beast. Even if it is dressed like you are.

Badger40 on October 12, 2011 at 8:23 AM

Some people are sheep, but most of us are very informed and making informed decisions. Those decisions include accepting reality and rejecting wishful thinking. Palin was unelectable. Perry is just about done. Paul is a nut. Huntsman is too one dimensional. Bachmann and Santorum aren’t gaining traction. That leaves Cain, Romney, and Newt. All three of them have issues that are at odds with conservatives.

So, exactly who should run? Perhaps you should since you are a true conservative? And if you wont run, why not.

csdeven on October 12, 2011 at 12:29 PM

Kind of surprised but I ran across a few of the Fred threads and had a couple of good chuckles at some of your barbs.
Red Pickup trucks, avid fans, and a spectacular flop. Good times ;)

Bradky on October 12, 2011 at 8:52 AM

:-) Yeah, it was fun.

csdeven on October 12, 2011 at 12:31 PM

Romney is the only one who has lost every national political race he has been involved in…add that one of the largest issues, ObamaCare, is off the table as Romney tries to explain to the American people how different RomneyCare is, as they fall asleep.
Romney is the one candidate that has, by his record, the best chance of losing to Obama.

right2bright on October 12, 2011 at 9:11 AM

So Romney failing to win the only national nomination he competed in is “losing every national race he has competed in”? How do you expect anyone to respond to such a straw man statement in a manner that advances your claims? Previous to 1980, you would disparage Reagan for losing every national race he ever competed in.

The polling of indies do not support your assertion that Americans will reject Romney over Romneycare. The federalism argument is easily understood and he is doing that effectively.

csdeven on October 12, 2011 at 12:53 PM

we took your RomneyCare, revised it and corrected the problems…your bill was fine for the State, but as President I have to take care of the nation, and although you bill was a great start…I finished it and improved on it.

right2bright on October 12, 2011 at 9:27 AM

Why are you thinking like a progressive? That explanation will work for progressives but will not (and is not) working on most Americans. Obamacare is hated by a huge majority of Americans and Obama talking like a progressive wont change their minds.

csdeven on October 12, 2011 at 12:57 PM

Do I blame Greenspan for the stock bubbles and the housing bubbles, no, I don’t, just as I don’t blame the existence of a gun for the crime, I don’t blame the Fed for the actions of traders, brokers, lenders.

The Fed has no power to change what the bad actors were doing, he could go to Congress and warn them, because Congress had the power to stop it, if Congress refuses to act, there’s little for the Fed to do.

Jason Coleman on October 12, 2011 at 1:41 AM

Greenspan is not an inanimate object. The Fed is given control of the monetary policy by the congress. It is the Fed’s job. Bubbles are caused by easy money and that is the result of our central bank keeping interest rates too low.

As an aside, if you’re going to blame Greenspan for the housing bubble, how do you explain the larger bubble in the UK, Ireland, the Netherlands, etc.

You can’t say that the UK was following Greenspan’s lead because they weren’t, their monetary policy was much tighter throughout the bubble but their overvaluations were greater than ours.

Jason Coleman on October 12, 2011 at 1:41 AM

Yes I am. Dollars can get converted into other currencies and easy money flooded the world. Bernanke’s quantative easing drove up the price of food not just in the US but all over the world.

Of those five, I have to go with Greenspan, I assume you’ll pick Volcker. I’ve stated my problems with Volcker and note that Obama is and has been following a Volcker playbook with VERY poor results.

I’m not fond of scapegoats, of which I think Greenspan is largely one. If he hadn’t sounded alarms in 2005, I’d have a different tune, but I screamed bloody murder when Congress ignored his warnings and I dumped everything I could. So if for personal reasons alone, that puts Greenspan on top for me.

Jason Coleman on October 12, 2011 at 1:41 AM

I don’t think Obama truly listened to Volcker any more than he is listening to Buffet. A lot of business men and economists have turned on this administration because the policies make no sense.

Greenspan wasn’t a scapegoat because he was in control of monetary policy. He could have stopped the speculation any time he wanted but he got scared after his Irrational Exuberance speech. If you remember that speech caused the over night futures markets to go limit down. (I was watching it on a Globex terminal.) After that he backed of and got a lot of criticism specifically from Trent Lott. He could have acted but chose not to. He was a coward and we are paying for his cowardice.

Bill C on October 12, 2011 at 1:02 PM

Pal, if we went back and took apart your postings, we wouldn’t have to wonder about you…normally it’s the ideas that are expressed, details get lost in the quick exchange. Take it easy…

right2bright on October 12, 2011 at 9:42 AM

I’m not a ‘pal’, bcs as far as I know, that indicates the male sex.
And we’ve been round & round on that before.
I’m a woman.
And responding to the comment: No $hit. But IMO, the ‘detail’ of what Congress is, is not small.
But then I really didn’t rip ol’ Bradky a new one over it.
I just made a simple statement.
I actually wonder aobut some of the $hit you say, too.
Again-MY opinion.
To which I am perfectly entitled to.
Sorry you don’t like it.
Tough.

Badger40 on October 12, 2011 at 2:18 PM

Some people are sheep, but most of us are very informed and making informed decisions. Those decisions include accepting reality and rejecting wishful thinking. Palin was unelectable. Perry is just about done. Paul is a nut. Huntsman is too one dimensional. Bachmann and Santorum aren’t gaining traction. That leaves Cain, Romney, and Newt. All three of them have issues that are at odds with conservatives.

So, exactly who should run? Perhaps you should since you are a true conservative? And if you wont run, why not.

csdeven on October 12, 2011 at 12:29 PM

All your opinions.
You have no way of knowing what the ‘reality’ of hypothetical situations are, any better than anyone else.
You have no idea if Palin really is ‘electable’ bcs she’s not running.
In the end, instead of always making such sweeping statements & calling the rest of us cluseless to reality bcs we don’t agree with your version of the truth, I postulate it would be more fruitful to just keep the open mind & walk through the chosen door when the time is actually nigh for you to choose a door.
‘Most’ of you? Who are these people?
Are these the people who have claimed to be conservative, & yet be the 1st in line for their chosen govt goody program/handout?
Are these the people who are secret Progressives, always decrying the loss of freedoms, yet the 1st to eliminate them when they don’t fit into one’s notion of what is right?
I’m not running for the school board bcs I work in the school as a teacher.
I’m not running for any other office bcs I am in a precarious financial situation that at this time does not allow it.
I live in North Dakota.
And support any way I can the locals running for office who I think will represent us here at the local level the best.
I am also active in the North Dakota Stockman’s Association, of which I am a member. I actively vote & debate with other, to promote policies that will ensure the Republic in relation to the cattle industry.
am doing the part that I can.
I also stand up for what is right & when I see govt waste, in my school, or in the local fried dept, I stand up & SPEAK my mind.
So I don’t need instructions from you on whether I’m doing my part or not.
I already am.
Regarding people as sheep: they ARE. Leadership is a gift you are born with, as well as something you can learn.
Sheep are a dime a dozen.
LEaders are not.
And nasty sheep? Well they don’t number the total sheep,but I would argue that those sheep who stand idly by while evil 7 wrongdoing are perpetrated upon others are just as guilty as those doing the bad stuff.

Badger40 on October 12, 2011 at 2:28 PM

I would argue that those sheep who stand idly by while evil 7 wrongdoing are perpetrated upon others are just as guilty as those doing the bad stuff.

Badger40 on October 12, 2011 at 2:28 PM

This includes so many people who say they are Christians, Republicans, etc.
Those sheep are no better than Democrats & Liberals who do bad things.
I have known very few people in my life who actually will do the right thing when the situation presents itself & there are negative consequences for doing so.
Those who do are the leaders.

Badger40 on October 12, 2011 at 2:31 PM

We have had, over the years, posters like this…they think of clever things to say, post them, sit back and admire their clever little words. Never thinking how stupid they appear, and how they become the “blog jester”.
Dance my little poster, like a monkey on the end of a chain, we toss you peanuts as you do your little tricks.

right2bright on October 12, 2011 at 9:14 AM

Project much?
Do you realize just how many people think you’re an idiot?
I bet you’d be surprised.
You $hit stinks just like anybody else’s.
Throw your rocks somewhere else.

Badger40 on October 12, 2011 at 2:35 PM

JoeinTX on October 12, 2011 at 8:17 AM

Since you didn’t watch, maybe you shouldn’t be so sure of what actually happened.

Rick Perry did not “step on his body parts” last night, not even close. He did great.

Romney royally screwed up as did Cain (Romney kept dodging ??? and Cain got flustered when the mod didn’t understand his answer, plus Cain said he liked Greenspan and every other answer was 99999999, oh, and he supported TARP). Bachmann was a liar (criticizing Perry for once supporting Gore when she herself supported Carter). Gingrich won. Santorum did well (!) and Paul actually was pretty good for him. Huntsman brought up religion and snidely got a dig at Perry so he’s scum, other than that he was forgettable. I notice in the comment section, that Red State thinks Perry did very, very well, too.

-Aslan’s Girl

Aslans Girl on October 12, 2011 at 5:26 PM

I don’t think Obama truly listened to Volcker any more than he is listening to Buffet. A lot of business men and economists have turned on this administration because the policies make no sense.

Greenspan wasn’t a scapegoat because he was in control of monetary policy. He could have stopped the speculation any time he wanted but he got scared after his Irrational Exuberance speech. If you remember that speech caused the over night futures markets to go limit down. (I was watching it on a Globex terminal.) After that he backed of and got a lot of criticism specifically from Trent Lott. He could have acted but chose not to. He was a coward and we are paying for his cowardice.

Bill C on October 12, 2011 at 1:02 PM

I’ll have to agree to disagree with you on your opinion of Greenspan. I view the Feds policy as the gun, had traders, lenders and brokers not taken liberties with that gun and with their accomplice Fannie and Freddie, I doubt we would be experience this on anywhere the level it has risen to.

I understand that you have a different perspective and are reluctant to see your own industry’s culpability in the problem. I said before that Greenspan wasn’t perfect, but I don’t think Greenspan was the architect, I think Dodd and Frank were. I also think they were supposed to be the sherriff and rather than preventing the crime, they become accomplices both before and after the fact.

As for Volcker, I think it’s quite clear from Volcker’s statements on Obama’s behalf and his own stated policy positions and the results, that Obama and Volcker were on the same page and Obama did follow much of the direction given to him in the first year plus of his term. It’s also obvious that Volcker and Obama have parted was from this original planning and Buffet’s recent abandonment of Obama confirms this.

Noting that Volcker, Buffet and others are jumping ship now does not infer that they were also in opposition in the up to this point. The break suggests the opposite.

Greenspan is an easy scapegoat, but he’s just the gun, not the stickup artist, the stickup artists were Frank, Dodd and others in the government, the mortgage industries that colluded with them, the brokers and traders that passed their bogus paper around until it no longer suited them and Fannie and Freddie who guaranteed every speculation that people could come up with on the Government/Taxpayers dime.

We disagree, and that’s cool; it’s been a pleasure to discuss, and I’m sure I’ll see you round the campus.

Jason Coleman on October 12, 2011 at 6:30 PM

Lucky for Romney, no one is watching this debate.

Lawdawg86 on November 9, 2011 at 9:08 PM

Comment pages: 1 19 20 21