I just got back from Fox where several people were talking up the fact that Perry is using last night’s gaffe to his “advantage.” Bill Hemmer even asked me about it on air. Apparently Perry is available to any media outlet that wants him today. He was on all the morning TV shows it seems, and he’s doing radio now. He’ll be back on Fox to talk to Megyn Kelly later today. And he’s apparently appearing on the Letterman show tonight.
It’s possible that Perry will get a momentary boost of support as he self-deprecatingly addresses last night’s brain implosion. But there are a couple problems with the idea that this comes anywhere near an advantageous opportunity for him.
First, if it works to candidates’ advantage to have embarrassing meltdowns on stage we’d see it more often. Why not take a big swig from a glass of milk before every tough question on the Euro or housing policy so you can explode it out of your nose before answering? That way you can get all kinds of free media the next day!
Second, I think people in some ways are letting Perry off easy precisely because this “gaffe” was so egregious (we’ve all frozen up in front of audiences before. I think I can remember every time it’s happened to me with excruciating accuracy). People naturally want to take a there-but-for-the-grace-of-God-go-I position on something like this. In other words, if it was less horrible he might be getting more grief. But put aside the queasy awkwardness of the moment for a second. Perry couldn’t remember that he wants to shut down the Department of Energy!? For weeks, energy reform was the only substantive policy he’d put forward. Energy is still one of the only topics he can discuss with anything approaching fluency. But he couldn’t remember he wanted to shut down DOE? It’d be more understandable if he forgot the Department of Commerce — people forget the existence of the Commerce Department all of the time.
Last, and this is a point a lot of people are making, but it’s an important one. His performance last night confirmed — with an exclamation point — the negative narrative of his entire campaign. Everyone could forgive Ron Paul if he spaced out on the name of a cabinet agency he wanted to shutter, because everyone knows that Ron Paul knows what he knows and has no problem explaining himself under normal circumstances. People are much more unsure about Perry and he compounded that uncertainty last night. It’s fine to say everyone has these bad moments. That’s true. Everyone makes mistakes. What you look for are patterns. Last night was so deadly because Perry reinforced his pattern rather than deviated from it. And he was already on borrowed time.
I don't think anyone who's taken a serious look at Perry, especially when he does one-on-one interviews or gives speeches or even question and answer sessions with actual people, doesn't think he knows what he knows.
Perry's biggest problem has been getting everything in out articulately in the 60-seconds-go format of the debates. Hey, everyone thinks Obama is great at that, even if it's for some reason I don't know. (I always thought Obama was at best a mediocre speaker/debater): how's that working out for ya? And, as you say, everyone's had that moment when you're about to say something you know backwards and forwards and you just seize up.
The question that you have to ask yourself under the Buckley rule is "are the two debates between the presidential candidates all that important for the election?" I'll be honest with you in that I can't remember the Gore-Bush, Kerry-Bush, McCain-Obama debates at all, but I can tell you I'll bet the media thought Gore, Kerry and Obama ran away with the debates at the time. And if you think that isn't going to be the case with Romney-Obama you've got another thing coming.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt doesn't matter who actually wins those debates, unless it's an absolute blowout by the R, the lapdogs are going to spin it for the D. If it is a blowout, then the D will be commended for holding his own against an opponent that is "all style and no substance"
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThose debates were all pretty important in confirming or disconfirming narratives for undecided and independent voters. The Gore-Bush debates, for example, probably swung the election.
If the media pushes the narrative that Perry is incompetent or stupid, then in the general election undecided and independent voters will tune into the debates to decide for themselves if its true or not. Given his past performance, they'll probaby decide that it is true. They might be wrong, but so what?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"First, if it works to candidates’ advantage to have embarrassing meltdowns on stage we’d see it more often."
This is way too general a statement. You can't really plan gaffes and even less so control the narrative that emerges from them. But it doesn't follow from that that this gaffe might not help Perry.
And you second argument can be turned on its head - precisely because this was one thing, out of perhaps not too many, that we know Perry knows, that he should be forgiven. It would be way worse if Perry couldn't recall, say, the name of the president of France or the year of the Civil War.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJonah, Spoken like a Romney supporter there.
Mind freezes are a problem but only when it happnes to Rs apparently (when Barry O had his freeze on 57 states OR dint even recall which Senate committee he worked on or When Clinton Plainly LIED about everything or when Hillary goofed on the Driver License issue), noone in the liberal media was complaining about it. Instead in the last case Russert was attacked for his persistence.
The question is why are Rs, especially the non liberal media scribes, so intent on cannibalizing their own? The "reiforced pattern" you mention is a liberal media concoction which is more applicable to the current Potus. Perry has been an executive for 10 years and overseen a thriving economy in TX. thats what the focus should be on.
Noone individual, who falls under w. the liebral media concocted version, can accomplish that.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseConservatives should and do hold candidates for office, any office, even dogcatcher, to a higher standard than the liberal media holds Obama.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRE: Milk Before Questions...
I for one am a big Spit-Take aficionado and would welcome this idea without question. See Neil Patrick Harris, the present day master of the art form.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusejust shows there is way too much govt that even a candidate cant remember departments!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnd that's what Perry's response should have been -- "Gosh, there are so many superfluous cabinet positions that getting rid of three just isn't enough. Government is too big."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseShoulda, woulda, coulda.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnd that's what Perry's response should have been -- "Gosh, there are so many superfluous cabinet positions that getting rid of three just isn't enough and I won't list them all. Government is too big."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJonah, you say that Perry reinforced his pattern, but didn't describe said pattern. I guess I could review some of your earlier posts, but could you refresh us?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhen the moment happened last night, there was a TON of immediate reaction that this killed his campaign. Today there is some pushback that it's an advantage. Neither is true, but today's positive overreaction is the equal and opposite reaction to yesterday's negative overreaction.
In a few days, we'll hopefully be able to just look at all the candidates with a wider field of vision.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJonah, I agree with your point in general. However, I don't think Perry is unwise to pursue such a strategy. He might as well do something high-risk, because he is toast anyway without a big turnaround. Who knows? Maybe this approach will create a new narrative that overrides the old one: perhaps people will sympathize and think "he is only human", or maybe his willingness to confront the mistake will make him look strong. It probably won't work, but he has nothing to lose.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOne reason I like Gingrich, despite a number of problems I have with him, is that if there is anyone in the Republican field who would be guaranteed to chew Obama up and spit him out like a three-day-old piece of bubble gum, it's Gingrich.
Others might or might not do well, but does anyone doubt that Gingrich would show the world what an empty suit Obama is, how he relies on the teleprompter the way a polio victim relies on an iron lung (okay, I'm done with the metaphors...)?
Perry, on the other hand... Yikes, look what the MSM is doing today. Imagine what they would do to him if he were the actual nominee.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou think we're not going to see that 'We Can Solve It' ad over and over again, with Newt made to look really foolish on that ridiculous couch with Nasty Pelousy supporting anthropogenic global warming and government intervention? Plus hit pieces from every angle: wives, meanness, hypocrisy?
Whoever the nominee is (just as whoever the front-runner has been) will get the MSM hit treatment.
As another commenter said, there are only a couple of general election debates, not the parade of interrogators who have lined up to take pot-shots at the GOP field. Moreover, the MSM will make sure that they declare Obama the winner of both - no matter what. It just isn't going to matter that much who the better debater is - and because of the foregoing we better hope that it doesn't.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMore important than out-debating Obama will be outdoing him in likability during the debates. That shouldn't be too hard now that everyone is onto O's self-regard, but you have to wonder whether Gingrich would be up to the job.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is an extremely good point. I respect Newt's intellect and fluency, but he's going to have to ratchet up his likability in a significant way to have a shot at winning the non-affiliated voters he'd need to take a general election.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm just incredibly sick of the way that the media puts the magnifying glass on the Republican _debates_, but not the Democrat _President_. Every submoron I've met in life who voted for Obama and has a Twitter account was chortling over this last night.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou may not like it, and I certainly don't like, but the fact of the matter is this is the reality for every Republican politician: They are held to a higher standard, in every way.
It is IMPOSSIBLE to be an effective Republicans leader, much less Commander-in-Chief if you're not a HIGHLY effective communicator. Irrespective of the quality of your policy positions, if you don't have the ability to defend those positions from the hostile media attacks (that are SURELY coming) and advocate for the enactment of those positions, you're going to be a failure.
Rick Perry is a nice guy, with a big heart and for the sake of argument, let's say he's right in every way from a policy point of view. He also happens to be way too poor of a communicator to have any hope of beating Barack Obama.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse