I agree. Rick is still a strong, is not the strongest contender for the GOP nomination. But back to Tomasky's piece which then goes on to say some rather unbecoming things about Romney:
....my case hinges—and here’s the second reason I’m buying Perry stock today—on the plainly observable fact that Mitt Romney is a really uninteresting and unappealing human being. Now, here, I’m really departing from the CW, because it is usually said by pundits that Romney has more crossover appeal than Perry, and polls tend to support this, although the differences so far are fairly marginal in most polls I see. Perry is said to be too extreme and too Texas. All that might be right.Lest we think Tomasky hearts Rick Perry from this quote, he is quick to add as an eastern liberal that he finds him repugnant.
On the other hand, Perry strikes me as more likely to pass—among Republicans—the old “do I want this man in my living room for the next four years?” test than Romney is. Who can possibly really like Romney? He’s like your boss, or the regional supervisor who comes by the office a few times a year. You tolerate him and suck up to him, but the experience is completely phony and awkward. I don’t know him and might have him wrong, but I’d just bet you a dollar that he doesn’t have many real friends. He has partners and associates and a swarm of acolytes who suck up to him because he’s rich. But he comes across as wooden, insincere (in a harmless rather than malevolent way), and totally emotionally unavailable.
Repugnant, but still more electable among us dumb Scotch-Irish hillbillys.
2 comments:
Ugh. Debate has always been Perry's Kryptonite. Even so, I am sick over his performances. He has given some answers wh - unforced errors on his part. Also, his answer re opposing in-state tuition = heartless was awful. You do not tell potential voters that they are heartless.
Perry could give an answer, re in-state tuition, which conservatives would oppose yet would respect. It is this:
1) the beneficiaries, for the most part, were brought to Texas as MINORS. A key point.
2) the beneficiaries are legally required to be working towards becoming legal citizens.
3) the beneficiaries pay the same tuition as any Texas citizen (less than citizens of other states); are statistically likely to live out their lives in Texas.
4) Texas State Legislature - when considering what is bet for the State of Texas - simply did not want to force such students to pay higher tuition rates. The measure passed the Texas State Legislature with only 4 votes opposing.
Conservatives would continue to largely oppose the policy, yet conservatives who listened to this explanation would respect this explanation. As red red as I am: had I been in the state legislature, I would have supported this legislation. It is, imo, the best current course for the good of the state.
To Perry's discredit and detriment: he has not explained the policy in this way. His failure is killing him; allows entire segments of debate to be dedicated to attacking him; takes precious opportunity, from him, to move to his strong suit of clear eyed economic leadership.
I am not sick on account of loving Rick Perry. I do not, exactly, love Perry. I do like Perry as a chief executive. A LOT.
Rather, I am sick b/c this election is not the moment for Romney. This election is the moment to press the Tea Party momentum forward. This is the moment to move the national conversation significantly rightward. This is the moment to follow the Stonewall Jackson dictum: when the opponent is on the run, THAT is the moment to attack more relentlessly than ever.
Romney is not the general to carry out the Stonewall Jackson dictum. Romney's natural constituency is independents, not Tea Party conservatives. Therefore, the thought of Romney being elected, in this particular historic moment of Tea Party momentum, makes me sick.
The morning after the debate, in the dreamy haze just before awakening, I had this thought: "Now, more than ever, we need Sarah Palin." I know you are not a big fan. She is somewhat down my list of favorites. However, she might be the general to seize the Stonewall Jackson moment and to press the Tea Party momentum forward.
In the debate, again, I loved Santorum's performance. Then, Santorum made a tin ear error: strong opposition to gays openly serving in the military. From my angle, it is obvious that the nation is happy about gays serving openly in the military. Secondarily, imo, the chances of gays messing up our military are small. I have been loving Santorum and loving Santorum, but his gays in the military position (at this moment in history) is political and practical stupidity. The Village People have left the barn and entered the recruitment center. Overnight, there is no going back.
I am, now, re the possibility of Romney winning, just tremendously angry. If I am in Kubler-Ross, then I am in the anger stage.
Great commment(s) Greg! So many thoughts, so little time to respond.
I fully agree with everything you say about Perry's ridiculous answer re in-state tuition. The arguments you list are compelling whether you agree or not.
Don't think Sarah could get elected but maybe Herman Cain now?!
Disagree with your gays in the military take on Santorum's answer.
I think Rick is correct in saying one's sexuality---gay or straight---should not be an issue while serving in the military and we're opening pandora's box....don't think the American people are as on board with this as you do.
Thanks as always for your great observations.
Post a Comment