This was a very successful debate debut for Rick Perry. It confirms his position as the leader of the field. As of now, this race is a Perry-Romney duel, but Perry’s the one to beat. Romney and Perry were well matched tonight, but Perry’s appeal to the base means he’s got a leg up over Romney just by fighting to a draw, which he did at least, if not better.
Perry’s biggest problem is the Fed Up! controversy. How did he handle it? He rightly framed his historical treatment of Social Security in Fed Up! as a reflection on the past — not the same as his policy answers for the present. But Perry didn’t back off of his “monstrous lie” and “Ponzi scheme” remarks, and that just might win him the nomination. Will it kill him in the general? I’m not so sure. Are there risks? Of course. But Perry’s onto something when he says that Americans know our entitlements are in trouble. Increasingly, they do. And the public awareness of this problem is growing week by week.
Running a presidential campaign — at least in part — as an educational effort on entitlement reform may not be the safest way to go, but that’s what all the folks who wanted Paul Ryan in the race have been asking for, isn’t it? And remember, Bush ran on Social Security reform in 2004 and won. Yes, he failed to pass it, but it wasn’t prohibitive during the election, and the public is far more ready to hear the truth about the entitlement crisis now than it was eight years ago.
The Fed Up! controversy is being transformed into the Perry-on-entitlement-in-debates-and-on-the-stump controversy, and that’s a winnable proposition.
There are no guarantees here, of course, which is one reason it’s nice to have a continuing Romney-Perry duel. This next month or so of debates is going to help both Romney and Perry with their greatest weaknesses. Romney is going to get a second look from conservatives, which he deserves. Romneycare is a problem that will never entirely fade. Yet it increasingly it looks as though it won’t be prohibitive, should Perry falter. Meanwhile, Perry is going to have a chance to get his message through to the public on the entitlement crisis, and it just might work.
The jobs issue has still got to be up front, but tonight’s debate shows how that’s possible, even as the entitlement issue gets some attention. All in all, a successful debate for all the candidates, and for the party. The field is maturing, and Obama is vulnerable.
Perry's stance on Texas executions was pathetic, an excuse to show how macho he could be.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis debate confirmed Perry as the leader of the field?
My goodness, Perry could hardly put two sentences together. He looked terrible, imo.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm not so sure, Mr. Kurtz. My girlfriend and I watched tonight eager to see how Perry would do and we both thought Perry came off as something of a jerk. Laying aside his policies--which I largely agree with--I'm just not sure how his attitude is going to play with the electorate. He needs to make some attempt to seem more likeable. Although I do agree that he came across as more serious tonight than he has on the campaign trail. Perhaps striking the right balance between the two is going to be a challenge. As most of us would agree, the real model here is Reagan.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAre you freaking kidding? Perry was terrible tonight. Once again NRO proves themselves to be Perry schills. What do you see in this guy? He looked completely lost tonight and clearly doesn't have a clue what is going on.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFed Up is a dealbreaker for me. Primary or general. I won't vote for anybody who wants to end SS or Medicare. It's not "Mediscare" it's MediFACT that he wants to kill SS and Medicare. No, Bush in 2004 offered nothing of the sort.
But the primary won't be decided by me. Lots of Republicans desire a 1964 style Goldwatery blowout, the very kind of election that gave us Medicare and Medicaid in the first place. Angle, O'Donnell and Paladino were just appetizers for 2012.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"I won't vote for anybody who wants to end SS or Medicare."
You *do* know that a vote for the status quo IS a vote to end SS and Medicare, right?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou're wrong. SS and medicare will always be there - just like unicorns and santa claus.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBy your demagoguery, you are a bigger advocate of ending Social Security and Medicare than you make Rick Perry out to be.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePlease provide a source where Perry said he wants to end Social Security or Medicare.
It's time we take on these scaremongering fools. I'm 32 and I pay over 14% of my income into programs I'm never going to see a dime of when I retire (if I'm so lucky).
Quit pandering to the status quo. They're screwing my generation and they NEVER paid as much as I'm paying for the benefits they're receiving.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRevo, here's a potential list of candidates you could vote for: 1) Barack H. Obama; 2) Hillary R. Clinton; 3) Dennis Kucinich; 4) Huntsman; 5) at worst, Romney. Your MediFACT will be broke within a decade and you won't see it for long anyway.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf Tea Party small government candidates causes GOP losses, I am fine with that. The Tea Party has convinced me that people who want more government spending are insane. If the RNC wishes to avoid such losses, then either put up some good small government candidates or shut up.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseA book you likely never heard of, nevermind have actually read (until Perry's hat was thrown in the primary ring) is a "dealbreaker" for you? And by the rest of your comment it's obvious that if Perry came down off a mountain carrying tablets after conferring with a burning bush you'd consider him "too extreme" and pull the lever for Unicorn King 2.0.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI disagree, Mr. Kurtz.
I came in eager to see the Texas governor and, while I like his willingness to stick to his guns, he needs to give us more substance. Speaker Gingrich, for example, can make a bold statement and then immediately back it up with some quick supporting facts and a line of reasoning. Governor Perry needs to explain his "why" better before someone like me trusts him with the reins.
I think Romney looked presidential in every way and when he discusses the details of the economy, my confidence soars (and I am not even a supporter.....yet). He is eager to answer questions and can convey why he takes certain positions. Governor Perry has some studying to do and needs to catch up to the others with his supportive facts and reason.
God bless,
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDan Hoffman
I came into tonight's debate hopeful that Perry would impress me, as on paper he's my favored candidate right now.
Which means that I was a friendly audience, so I should have seen what Stan Kurtz saw tonight-- a win by Perry-- when I saw pretty much the exact opposite.
Perry had a LOUSY night. It started poor, rallied a bit, but by and large, he was clearly uncomfortable, and had some horrible answers to questions he should have been prepared for (What the heck was that Global Warming answer? Ugh).
And while I agree that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme, not enough people know what a Ponzi scheme is (let alone what *Social Security* is) to allow that to be an effective shorthand. Perry needs to do better there, especially since he doubled-down on Social Security reform in a HUGE way tonight.
Nope, Romney had a better night.
(Oh, and Newt reminds us all of what a tragedy it is that such a great conservative mind is chained to such a lousy politician).
Anyway, the real loser? The audience, for suffering through ANOTHER lousy MSNBC debate that avoided all the problem areas facing Obama's America in favor of making the GOP look bad.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI agree. Perry confirmed my suspicions... He's dumb and dangerous and someone's puppet... not much different from Obama.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI have to agree. I admit I tuned in towards the end, but Perry was giving a pretty poor performance.
In response to the question of whether Iraq was a mistake (an important question imho) he went off on a random tangent about how Obama sucks. Asked again, he still didn't give an answer including the word "Iraq". Given an opportunity to put forward his ideas on foreign policy (particularly in regard to the all-important interventionism vs isolationism schism which seems to be emerging), he said nothing, and I really don't know where he stands.
On global warming, another confused answer. He just repeated "the science isn't settled"... but of course that's a general characteristic of science, it's never settled. But is it a 20% likelihood or a 99% likelihood? Exactly how settled would the science *need* to be, before it becomes rational to do something? And if we're going to do "something", then precisely what kinds of "something" can be done with the least harm to the economy? These are questions which a sensible position on AGW needs to encompass.
Mitt, on the other hand, was on fire. His answers seemed fluent and well thought out.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTrue, why do Republicans give MSNBC a debate? Honestly, I do NOT understand why they allow them to carry a debate. The post panel discussion alone is reason enough to completely ignore that channel.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSomeone always asks this, and I am sure it is for bipartisan public servce reasons which should make the difference between the parties obvious.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI am reminded of Gore's idiotic lockbox metaphor, so it can be done.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseKurtz cannot be serious. Honestly thinks Perry helped himself. I don't think so. Romney shined. Perry sounded illiterate when he kept saying what we done in Texas, what he done. Perry was not presidential and too snarky to Romney.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse