Rick Perry made his national TV splash at last night’s Republican debate and, just as he does here at home, made people squirm. His puffy-chested bravado over executing prisoners, and his Social Security-Ponzi scheme comparison landed with a thud except among the most ardent conservatives.
Check out these reviews of Perry’s first national debate:
“And for Perry, I think that too little time has passed since the GW Bush administration. The memories of crisp, hyper-decisive, but under-informed answers to complicated issues are still there, and for a general-election campaign are not a plus. Perry sounds less ‘compassionate’ than the GW Bush of the 2000 campaign, and less reflective or informed.” — James Fallows, The Atlantic.
(Kinda sounds like Fallows is saying Perry is more callous and shallow than Bush. Wow, that would hurt…except that Perry will take it as a compliment.)
“Perry made explicit views, such as on Social Security, that will very likely haunt him in the weeks and months ahead. His front-runner status was built on a house of cards and he will struggle to retain it.” — Thomas Mann, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, to Los Angeles Times reporter James Oliphant
(Don’t worry, Perry will call every nutjob evangelist in Texas and have a huge prayer-fest to ask God to keep his house of cards fully retained.)
“The organizers of Wednesday night’s debate did their best to turn the eight person debate into one that was really about two people: Perry and [Mitt] Romney. And, in that match-up, Romney came out the winner. He was confident and solid throughout the entirety of the debate, a benefit of being a two-time presidential candidate. He…took advantage of stumbles made by his main opponent Rick Perry.” — Amy Walter, ABC News
(Expect more stumbles in future debates. Perry can’t help himself; remember, he’s the superficial version of Bush, although that’s like a shot glass calling a thimble “shallow”.)