GOP Debate a Death Knell for Perry?

Pages: 1 2

Mitt Romney did very well as usual. He won significant applause to nearly every answer he gave. His comment that the President should never apologize for the country was warmly received. Interestingly, in answer to a question about the perception of him as a flip-flopper, he mentioned that he’s only been with one wife and has stayed at once church. This was a way of reaching out to social conservatives, but one can’t help but think it may have been a way of contrasting himself with Gingrich, who is now statistically tied with Romney for second place in Iowa.

His biggest moment was when he said he’d confront China for intellectual property theft, hacking into government and corporate computers and currency manipulation. He said he’d label China as a currency manipulator and bring the case to the World Trade Organization. His answer on tax reform where he said that he would not immediately pursue a flat tax but would like to see it happen “eventually,” was the answer that the audience was the least receptive to. Romney’s problem remains that his poll numbers stay at around 25%. He needs his opponents to split the vote against him in order to win.

Newt Gingrich had an excellent night that will continue his momentum. He has a great chance to pick up Rick Perry’s supporters. Of all the candidates, he most consistently pleased the audience. He said he wants Ben Bernanke “fired as rapidly as possible” and called for auditing the Federal Reserve. As usual, he criticized the moderators and news media for their reporting on the economy and Occupy Wall Street. His answer on the high cost of education was particularly noteworthy. He will probably cement his third-place position now.

Michele Bachmann is staking out ground as the foreign policy hawk. She framed the deficit as a national security issue. She said that the Chinese “dumped” counterfeit computer chips into the U.S. that are now used in the Pentagon’s computers and that China is constructing underground tunnels for storing nuclear weapons. She explained that American money paid for China’s first aircraft carrier and will soon be paying for their entire army. Her other stand-out moment was when she accused Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac of engaging in crony capitalism.

There were no memorable moments from Rick Santorum or Jon Huntsman. In an exchange reminiscent of when Tim Pawlenty declined to criticize Romney to his face, Huntsman said his rivals calling for confronting China were “pandering.” He was then given an opportunity to take on Romney and backed down. Ron Paul’s two best answers were when he said he’d cut $1 trillion from the federal budget and eliminate five agencies and when he said that federal student loans were responsible for rising education costs.

The debate was one of the most polite ones, without a single significant exchange between the candidates. Still, it was a decisive one. It will be extremely difficult for Rick Perry to recover. Right now, the race is dominated by Mitt Romney, Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich, and any of the three could win the nomination.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

Pages: 1 2

  • DogWithoutSlippers

    Perry opened his mouth, but his foot would not fall completely out!

  • Amused

    Two down …who's next . LOLOLOL…and while literally drowning in his own B.S. , Perry fires his final salvo …"Obama didn't do that " -that being , eliminating Three Government Depts , one of which he can't remember .
    Folks , ya just gotta find someone who knows more than just ,badmouthing Obama .

    • mrbean

      Give the GOP electorate and the American people some credit. This country is in terrible shape. They know it. You know it. They want solutions. You’re providing comedy. Keep it up, the Republican Party will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory and hand the Prince of Fools Barack Obama and the Democrat Party another 4 years

      • EDM

        we can only hope so

  • Murray Schwartz

    They are a joke, those republicans. I think that's one thing everyone can agree on.

    Personally i hope they nominate Cain. Or better still Palin…back from the politcal graveyard .. LOL…I mean what was all that about? Can you believe that anyone could have been dense enough to defend/vote for her? LOL… HA!, HA!, HA! what a bunch of jokers….

  • StephenD

    To the detractors all, I'd put Gingrich in a debate with Obama anytime, anyplace. I'd be careful calling them "a joke" so when Gingrich wipes the floor with Oh-Bee you won't have too far to go to eat crow.

    • Jim_C

      You're right that Gingrich is the only one with the potential to best Obama in a debate. Ron Paul, too, in a sense, though he is unelectable. The rest, including Romney, could never get the better of Obama, for at least two reasons: One, Obama's proven himself a saavy campaigner. Two, Obama has a record the candidates right now have the luxury to misrepresent without answer.

      The problem for Newt is a perennial problem for anyone who spent time in Congress: there's a long record to draw from and pick at. Couple that with any personal baggage and Newt's "He's still here?" image…problematic.

      • Steeloak

        Obama has a record alright, one he is desperately trying to run away from.
        His only hope is to make the campaign about his opponent, not his record. That is why he is cranking up the Democrat lie and smear machine.
        2012 is shaping up to be the dirtiest campaign in many years. The Herman Cain smear is just the first salvo in the war. Obama will use every Chicago dirty trick in the book to win.

        • Jim_C

          You underestimated Obama the first time; I encourage you to continue. Obama hasn't done anything so far to "run away from" his record, so who knows what you're referring to.

          When your sides' own "lie and smear machine" keeps portraying Obama as some sort of Marxist radical, you only make it easier for him to tout his (alas, all too-) moderate record. Notice Congresses' approval rating? Notice the losses the TEA party took yesterday? You think that comes from helping Obama–or their stated goal of standing in his way as he tries to solve problems?

          • Steeloak

            Last November was the first referendum on his record, next November will be the last one.
            As far as being a Marxist, his history is beyond question, the fact that the media chose to ignore it does not make it disappear. I refer you to this excellent summary: http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProf
            He would be best described as an Alinskyite Marxist.

          • Steeloak

            Losses?
            Do you mean the union taming bill in Ohio – $30 million in union money, poured into a heavily union state to defeat a bill that probably would have passed, had it not included Police & Firefighters unions. Not really a referendum on the Tea Party. That loss was offset by the equally large percentage of the vote that rejected forcing Ohioans to buy insurance under Obamacare.
            I'm scratching my head on anything else – do you possibly mean the definition of life beginning at conception law in Mississippi? I'll go with Haley Barbour's answer on that – outsiders from Colorado got that placed on the ballot & many pro-life people had problems with the way it was worded, so they didn't support it. Again, not really a loss for the Tea Party or are you really asking me to believe that one of the most pro-life states in the country has suddenly switched to pro-abortion?

          • Jim_C

            Not sure what kind of Marxist surrounds himself with people for whom Wall Street board rooms are their natural habitat, but like I said, keep on portraying Obama as some sort of extreme Leftist: it actually helps Obama.

  • ObamaYoMoma

    It's simple, either Obama loses the 2012 elections or this country, at least the America we grew up to love, will be history. Hence, considering the dark clouds looming over Herman Cain, I can't really see him winning the Republican Party nomination given the huge stakes involved in this election and the risk of an October surprise that could in one fell swoop destroy Republican Party chances for victory in 2012 that would inevitably doom this country.

    Indeed, prior to the recent allegations because Cain was black, very charming, and extremely likable most voters were willing to overlook his lack of experience and knowledge deficits feeling that he could grow into the job, and as a successful businessman he made a nice alternative to Romney, who is a dreaded Mormon. But now considering the enormous stakes involved with this upcoming election, I don't think the American people will be willing to risk it all on a Herman Cain candidacy and will in the end decide to settle on a safer candidate.

    With respect to Rick Perry, he needs to move on and stop embarrassing himself and the state of Texas, as he is becoming a spectacle.

    Of the remaining candidates the two most viable seem to be Romney and Gingrich, although Gingrich's skeletons in his closet will inevitably be pulled out the closet to haunt the Republican Party in the event he wins the Republican Party nomination. Hence, like Cain and considering the enormous stakes involved in this election if Obama wins, I don't know if the Republican voters will be willing to risk it all on a Gingrich candidacy, as there is too much at stake riding on this election.

    • kafirman

      I think it is possible that a Cain nomination would be the biggest threat to Barry "the sodomite" Soetoro. The only "argument" for not voting Republican is racism. Cain removes this. For every soul freed from the demoncrat plantation, Cain would get a two vote margin.

      • ObamaYoMoma

        I think it is possible that a Cain nomination would be the biggest threat to Barry "the sodomite" Soetoro. The only "argument" for not voting Republican is racism. Cain removes this.

        There is too much at stake riding on this election for me to support Cain, because if Obama wins another 4 year term in office, say hello Greek economic meltdown, only it will be happening in the USA and on a much larger scale that will have worldwide ramifications for decades. Indeed, with all due disrespect to Ron Paul, the only thing standing between a world dominated by freedom and a world dominated by totalitarianism is the USA. If the USA goes down, that barrier will also go down with it, and the forces of totalitarianism will take advantage of the situation.

        The Left has already placed a looming cloud over Cain and he hasn't even won the nomination yet. If he wins the nomination, they will unleash a barrage on him that will make the Palin barrage seem meek in comparison because he is a black man living off the plantation and a direct threat to their monopoly on black society. You think Palin was ruthlessly attacked? Just wait to see what will happen if Cain wins the nomination, holy hell will be unleashed. No thanks, there is too much riding on this election for me to risk it all on a candidate that could very easily implode long before the November election ever arrives.

        The same goes for Newt. Although I love Newt and think he would make a great president, unfortunately he has way too much excess baggage locked away in his closet that will be unleashed in the event he wins the nomination. Again, there is too much riding on this election to put all our eggs in the Newt Gingrich basket, as his campaign could also very easily implode long before the November election. The Left once before already destroyed his career. They could very well manage to do it a second time.

        Indeed, there is too much at stake riding on this election for me to take a chance by putting all my eggs in a basket that could very easily end up imploding long before the 2012 November election arrives. Now if the country wasn't sitting on the precipice and teetering, I would be more willing to take a chance, but under the current circumstances, now isn't the time to start gambling on America's future.

        For every soul freed from the demoncrat plantation, Cain would get a two vote margin.

        If you believe that, then you are more than just a little naïve.

        • Uze

          always remember, palin was/is a complete moron and had/has absolutely no business being in charge of a country. She would make Berlusconi look good! I mean really good! lol.

  • Steeloak

    I feel sorry for Perry, he just can't seem to get his act together. He is a savy politician, an excellent governor, and has been unbeatable here in Texas. I can't explain why, but he just loses it all in these debates, it's just not what he is capable of.

    The attacks on Cain seem to be backfiring, his fundraising and his poll numbers just keep going up. Americans like what they see in Herman Cain and they hate the sleazy political attacks on him.

    • Murray Schwartz

      Correction… extreme right wing ideologues like what they see in Cain. He'll get massacred in a general election.

      • NotaBene

        It doesn’t matter because the GOP won’t nominate a black person for higher office. Most Republicans can’t bring themselves to vote for any black person no matter his ideology.

        • Freddy

          no argument there.

          • Steeloak

            You three can keep whistling past the graveyard. If Cain gets the nomination, he will roll over Obama like a freight train. It's going to be fun watching your heads explode.

          • Jim_C

            Wish you were here to bet you, but we both know Cain has zero chance at the nomination, so we'll miss our chance to see.

            Just a matter of time before Cain decides the book deal and the Fox gig are worth more than the aggravation of campaigning.

          • Steeloak

            Dream on friend. Cain is a bulldog and a fighter. Cain is no Fred Thompson.

    • Asher

      Cain and his family will be interviewed on Gretawire Monday evening. They are a unique and talented family, (Not the MainStream uneducated, ill-informed, or Liberal pawns in the Black race, who have been lied to by the Left.)

  • Stephen_Brady

    McRomney and Gingrich won the debate, handily. Partly, this was due to the fact that the CNBC moderators (where was Larry Kudlow?) concentrated their questions on Romney … he received 9 questions in the first half-hour, alone.

    Although Romney is a smooth talker, if the debates boil down to him, Gingrich, and perhaps, one other candidate, and if the format then allows for longer answers, Gingrich will shine. Whatever room he walks into, he is the smartest man there. Many of Romney's answers, last night, were obviously pre-packaged and waiting for the right moment. In long give and takes, Gingrich will crush Romney.

    My heart is still with Cain, but the media and the DEMs are out to destroy this black conservative. He doesn't fit the Left's narrative …

    • BWFC

      If either Gingrich or Cain win the nomination. Bet the house on a second Obama term.

    • Jim_C

      The first people out to "destroy" Cain (besides his own carelessness) are his opponents. That's how this game works. As a liberal I'd LOVE to have Cain as an opponent. Pretty easy pickins.

      I like Gingrich's idea of 3 hour, Lincoln-Douglass style debates against Obama.

      Unfortunately, I don't think the American public agrees and would prefer soundbytes and posturing.

      • Stephen_Brady

        Gingrich's idea would take debating away from platitudes to serious, in-depth debate. A person sees what he wants to see in a platitude, and hears what he wants to hear … like "hope and change". A candidate dealing in these soundbytes, constantly? How do we know what he really means, or intends to do?

        I winced, last night, when Gov. Perry "planted the flag". I think I know what he meant (at least, I hope I did), but it was a silly posture in a two-hour debate. Also, like him, I want to do away with the Dept. of Energy. However, not only can I remember it, but I know why. What does he really mean?

        BTW, how was Mr. Cain "careless"? He was only careless if he did the things he has been accused of. I'd bet that he didn't, and I smell David Axelrod's presence in this whole affair.

        • Jim_C

          About Cain, I mean he has allowed himself to be caught off guard too many times, not only with this "scandal" (or whatever it is) but also just on typical questions. Anyone can speak in generalities; he doesn't really seem to have done his homework, and that's troubling. He's made a mantra out of saying "I have no evidence to back this up, but I believe…." I want someone who has evidence to back up his views!

          I would love to see a substantive debate on political philosophies and policies. We really lack that and it's unfortunate because we know the country's in serious trouble. But I guess they don't sell soap.

  • BLJ

    These are not debates people. Wake up! They are just soundbites. Watching them is a waste of time.

  • Supreme_Galooty

    BLJ, you are absolutely right about that, and furthermore they are not even very informative regarding anyone's qualifications and abilities to function as president. They provide a great opportunity to sound glib, look "presidential," and pontificate. They ARE useful in that one gains a certain "feeling" about their abilities and ideologies. Want some substance? Eliminate the so-called journalists.

    A top-notch, effective president does NOT need to be able to think on his feet. He needs to be able to think clearly, think deeply, and decide well. A first class executive needs to surround himself with able thinkers, able administrators, and manage them well. A good president must be resolute, of good character and integrity, and most importantly dedicated to the good health of the country – even more than his own well-being.

    • Freddy

      makes sense….

    • Steeloak

      "A first class executive needs to surround himself with able thinkers, able administrators, and manage them well. A good president must be resolute, of good character and integrity, and most importantly dedicated to the good health of the country – even more than his own well-being."

      Unlike the current chief executive, a corrupt Chicago pol who surrounds himself with radicals, ideologues, party hacks, and clueless ivory tower intellectuals.

  • http://www.muzyc.com muzyc

    oh, the good old party…

  • Yetwave

    Perry shot himself in the foot so often that he no longer has a leg to stand on.
    Unfortunately, the most capable man on the stage, Newt Gingrich, has more baggage than a caravan of porters can carry and is unelectable. In the US it's not what you know or how capable you are but the missteps you have made along the way that determine your viability (not suitability) as a presidential candidate.
    Obama's occupation of the White House, OWH, is attributable as much to his fog-shrouded background as any assets he may have.

  • Hugh

    In a previous Presidential debate Reagan went blank and did worse than Gov. Perry. Yet, Ronald Reagan was an excellent President. I am not a big defender of Gov. Perry, but attack him on issues, not because he abolished a Cabinet post in his brain before he might do so in reality. His gaffe about 3 cabinet positions is the kind of forgetfulness every public speaker experiences sometimes. Unfortunately, the liberal media seek to spin this against Perry in all of Obama's 58 states.
    And a senile Reagan was still a better President than Carter and many others.

    • Murray Schwartz

      LOL…You can't say that Reagan was senile (even though he was) on this website! That's terribly rude of you…. lol

    • Jim_C

      Don't know why you guys single out the "liberal media" when every conservative radio and tv show I saw was talking about Perry's gaffe.

  • Asher

    I also agree about Rick Perry….. I think anyone can forget something under Pressure, it doesn't mean that the person doesn't have good ideas or is incompetent….It was also obvious that On Foreign Policy the GOP dominates the field. Newt and Romney were exceptional, and Bachmann was also very noticed because of her support of Israel…..Iran is about to get Nukes….Now who in their right mind is going to Vote for Obamageddon!

  • Jim C

    Gingrich is still the smartest guy in the room and the strategic way he campaigns is quite saavy. Along with Ron Paul, they are the only serious conservatives in the room ( Bachmann and Santorum are conservative, but nowhere near serious contenders). Cain is sunk, it's his decision on whether he wants to bow out gracefully or go down in ignominy.

    It's basically all over but the shouting; but a lot more money will be spent until they all fall in to endorse Romney.

  • ObamaYoMoma

    I hate to rain on your naive parade, but Ron Paul is not a conservative, he is an unhinged anarcho-kook and although his few supporters are extremely loud and incredibly dedicated, the truth is he doesn't have a prayer of winning anything other than a straw poll.

  • Larry F

    Are you able to back up that meaningless ramble with any substance… ie. a semi-intelligent argument as why he is not suitable to govern?

  • Steeloak

    He thinks it is ok for Iran to have nukes. He thinks 911 was our fault. He thinks the United States is an imperialist oppressor of other countries. He thinks the Iraq war was illegal. You may agree with him, but that just makes you a kook too.

  • ObamaYoMoma

    Are you able to back up that meaningless ramble with any substance… ie. a semi-intelligent argument as why he is not suitable to govern?

    Yes, like Obama's former minister, that anarcho-kook Paul believes that 9/11 was America's chickens coming home to roost, and then sites the CIA's ouster of Mossadegh in 1953 to backup his mentally incompetent and totally absurd assertions. Which is utterly ludicrous in any event, as Mossadegh was a secular Muslim apostate that would inevitably have been one of the first apostates to be executed had he still been alive in 1979 when the new Islamic regime seized power in Iran thanks to that moronic moonbat Jimmy Carter, who like a useful idiot had stupidly pulled the Persian rug out from under the terminally ill Shah. Not to mention that the 9/11 jihadist perpetrators were Sunnis, which are the eternal mortal enemies of the Shiites. Hence, Ron Paul couldn't be a bigger loon and anyone that supports that moron is one too.

  • Larry F

    I think it's ok for Iran to have nukes to. especially when agreesive countries like the US, China, russia and israel ..and pakistan for that matter have them. If I ran Iran, or lived there for that matter…I'd want nukes too….when you look at the track record of the above nations.

    Ron Paul doesn't think 9/11 was our fault. He says that imperialist behavior was a contributing factor in breeding the terrorists though. and I agree with him on that.
    The US IS a an imperialist opressor of other countries… look at the middle east and latin america for that.

    Most reputable and serious international lawyers believe that iraq was illegal.

    I think you're the one who has been brain-washed by ideological junk, fueled by stupid websites like this one.. … not Ron Paul.

  • Freddy

    you really have a tiny brain don't you?

  • Guest

    nothing inteliigent from this guy!

  • Murray Schwartz

    This guy is so stupid, his birth certificate is an apology from the condom factory

  • ObamaYoMoma

    you really have a tiny brain don't you?

    nothing inteliigent from this guy!

    This guy is so stupid, his birth certificate is an apology from the condom factory

    To Murray Schwartz, Guest, Freedy, and Larry F,

    Damn…I spray a little truth on the woodwork that you moonbats can't possibly refute, and immediately the army of self-hating/blame America first Ron Paul anarcho-kooks that infests our country comes crawling out of the woodwork like roaches to immediately demonstrate why they are all so mentally incompetent.

  • Jim_C

    Actually I tend to agree that there is a "kook" element to Paul's beliefs (though he's quite sane). My point is that he is the closest to truly espousing core CONSERVATIVE values–not what passes today as surface-level conservative branding. People like Perry and Romney will forever be in a silly battle to prove "who's more conservative" even though they'll both waffle till the cows come home.

    Even Gingrich will have to eventually clarify what conservatives would call "big government" views. Paul would never have to clarify.

    You guys don't like Paul because it hurts to realize the Iraq War was a huge mistake in balance after you threw all your eggs in that non-necessary basket. Your pride won't allow it.

  • ObamaYoMoma

    My point is that he is the closest to truly espousing core CONSERVATIVE values

    Give me a break, Ron Paul isn't a conservative. He is a mentally incompetent loon. You must believe that being mentally handicapped is somehow being conservative. No wonder you are a liberal.

    People like Perry and Romney will forever be in a silly battle to prove "who's more conservative" even though they'll both waffle till the cows come home.

    It's not even close, Perry made Texas a sanctuary state for illegal aliens and even provides illegal aliens tuition paid scholarships at taxpayer expense, something American citizens can't even qualify for. Perry also supports pathways to citizenship, i.e., backdoor amnesty. Perry is also against building a security fence to secure and seal off the southern border. Perry is also an Islamopanderer.

    Meanwhile, Romney in stark contrast to Perry is 100 percent against all forms of amnesty under any circumstances whatsoever. Romney is against using taxpayer money to give illegal aliens free tuition and therefore more rights than American citizens. Romney says if elected he will shut down all magnets to illegal immigration including withholding federal money to sanctuary cities and going after the businesses that hire them. Romney supports building a security fence on our southern border with Mexico. Finally, the only ones claiming that Romney waffles and flip flops are liberals like you and people in general that don't like him because he is a Mormon.

    Even Gingrich will have to eventually clarify what conservatives would call "big government" views. Paul would never have to clarify.

    Again, the only elections that Paul and his anarcho-kook brigade can win are straw polls. They are pretty good at that, but actually winning a presidential election? Sorry, but there aren't enough mentally handicapped morons in America for that to ever happen.

    You guys don't like Paul because it hurts to realize the Iraq War was a huge mistake in balance after you threw all your eggs in that non-necessary basket. Your pride won't allow it.

    Actually, there was nothing wrong with ousting Saddam, that wasn't the problem. The problem was the subsequent pursuit of two silly and asinine fantasy based nation-building missions that were incredibly misguided and exceedingly counterproductive in Afghanistan and Iraq that were based on false PC multicultural myths and assumptions, as winning the hearts and minds of Muslims is absolutely impossible since they are obligated to hate our non-Muslim unbeliever guts no matter what and because Western-style democracy is impossible in the Islamic world because Islam will not tolerate any other form of governance.

    Nevertheless, like Obama's former fiery self-hating and American bashing minister, Rev. Wright, Ron Paul believes that the 9/11 jihad attacks were America's chickens coming home to roost, and he sites the CIA's ouster of Mossadegh in 1953 as the defining event. When Mossadegh was a secular Muslim apostate that had he still been alive back in 1979 when the ruling Mullahs ruthlessly seized power thanks to that unhinged self-hating leftwing moron, Jimmy Carter, who pulled the Persian rug out from under the terminally ill Shah of Iran, he would have been among the first Muslim apostates executed by the new Islamic regime. Not to mention the fact that the 9/11 jihad perpetrators were Sunnis that are the eternal mortal enemies of the Shiites.

    Thus, that self-hating/blame America first moron couldn't be more mentally incompetent and if the self-hating foreign policy he espouses ever came to fruition, the gigantic vacuum that would be left behind would very quickly be filled by the forces of totalitarianism, and in only a matter of a short time the USA and the world would be rendered into totalitarianism. Paul just can't comprehend the fact that freedom and liberty must always be closely guarded and diligently defended. He is too busy bashing America instead.