Jacoby wrote:
aghogday wrote:
The associated press headlined He held his own, and USA Today, suggested he did not significantly retreat in defense of his views.
From USA Today:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2011-09-12/Social-Security-GOP-debate-Tea-Party/50377310/1Quote:
TAMPA – At a raucous, Tea Party-fueled debate, Texas Gov. Rick Perry proved his freshly minted front-runner status: Mitt Romney blasted him on Social Security, Rick Santorum on immigration and Michele Bachmann on a controversial executive order he signed as governor.
Perry, the latecomer who shot to the top of national polls when he announced his candidacy just last month, moderated his tone on Social Security and in another case conceded an error. But he didn't fundamentally retreat from his views, setting up a fierce battle for the nomination against President Obama next year.
Associated Press:
http://www.journalgazette.net/article/20110913/NEWS03/309139944/1066/NEWS03Quote:
Perry holds his ground as rivals attack record
CHARLES BABINGTON | Associated Press
TAMPA, Fla. – Attacked from all sides by fellow Republicans, Texas Gov. Rick Perry softened his rhetoric if not his position on Social Security in a snarky presidential campaign debate Monday night. He fended off assaults on his record creating jobs and requiring the vaccination of schoolgirls against a cancer-causing sexually transmitted virus.
I agree Bush was better at debates than he was with the teleprompter.
While Perry's defense of his stance on hispanic immigration didn't go over well with the audience tonight, it might earn some votes from the fastest growing demographic in the US. The Hispanic support that Bush received made a difference in the Bush-Gore election. And, there wasn't much difference that was needed in Florida.
Perry seems to match the Republican voter temperment. Angry. That may resonate well for Republicans on general election day in motivation to go to the polls, if the economy doesn't change for the better from now until then. Is the economy going to get better? Not likely I think.
Possibly for the House and Senate as well.
I would never vote for Perry in any election. But he has potential demographic advantages, that the other front runners, namely Bachman and Romney, don't possess.
History at times repeats itself: anger at Clinton, a Texas Govenor, and the Hispanic vote in 2000. Greater anger at Obama, a Texas Govenor, and the Hispanic vote for 2012.
That just goes to show you how bias the media is. They seem determined to make this only a Romney/Perry race. Watch the debate and see for yourself how he did.
I saw the video, and appears clear to me that in this case Romney was the political winner of this debate. Paul is obviously the smartest guy in the room, but it appears that this is not what it takes to be the Republican nominee for President.
Although there were no clear winners identified in the debate, in the headlines I saw yesterday, the headlines today are suggesting that Perry is making Romney into a more formidable canidate. That is as close a statement as I have seen as to, which canidate gained political points for the debate. The coming polls may provide a better answer.
Political debates aren't judged on technical merit, alone, if they were Paul would probably win every debate. Alot of this stuff is judged on physical presentation and reaction from the audience. The most important aspect of this type of debate, is personality not substance. Perhaps the clearest example of this was seen in the Gore/Bush debates.
Research suggests that people are influenced in their decisions by emotion more than logic when they are buying into a product, in this case the product is a politician. I find Paul's intellect appealing, but it appears that he does not gain as much notice because he lacks the emotional appeal and attention that the front runners, are receiving from both supporters and the media.
Most people don't even pay attention to these debates, they look at who is considered popular in their particular herd, and follow them right into the election booth. There aren't enough potential herd members in the voting public, to support the appeal of Paul, as far as I can see. I'm not suggesting the herd mentality is good, but in a population of over 300 million, where most everything is commercialized to sell, it appears that this is what we have.
There are those presidents that were elected, before the advent of mass media, for their intellect, that would have never had a chance, today, because of lack of emotional appeal seen by the general public. I doubt Lincoln would have stood a chance. That I think is a sad but true comment on our culture.
13 Sep 2011, 12:41 am
