The Stepford Wives grin…George W. Bush bluster…Rush Limbaugh insensitivity…Cliff Clavin world insight…it was there for all to see.
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”.)
The most telling images from last night’s debate were of Perry getting in Ron Paul’s face during one of the breaks:
http://l.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/OKFmp_EXHMm0KV8eTtB0Ow–/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9aW5zZXQ7aD0zMzc7cT04NTt3PTUxMg–/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/Reuters/2011-09-08T022735Z_01_LOA29_RTRIDSP_3_USA-CAMPAIGN-DEBATE.jpg
Between Perry’s record and conduct, I just don’t see him hanging on long term in the race.
But his hair looked good.
Rick Perry should be ashamed of himself for putting his hand on
Ron Paul’s arm and pointing at him, next time perry should do that to a police officer and he’ll get tazed.
Imagine that, liberal pundits giving a conservative republican bad reviews.
You morons would hammer the Lord Christ if he were a Republican…………..
It’s a stretch to label any of the reviewers quoted in this article as “liberal pundits.”
To Joaquin Rodriguez:
The Lord Christ would never be nominated by the Republican Party – he’s too liberal in his teachings.
“Perry made explicit views, such as on Social Security, that will very likely haunt him…”
For calling it a “Ponzi scheme”. That ruffled some feathers.
But according to wiki..
“A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to separate investors, not from any actual profit earned by the organization, but from their own money or money paid by subsequent investors. . . .
The system is destined to collapse because the earnings, if any, are less than the payments to investors.”
Hello?
Social Security is actually one of the easiest economic problems facing us. By increasing the earnings cap so that all income is subject to the social security withholding, and by increasing the age for full benefits by a year or two, Social Security can be made solvent for decades.
It’s Medicare that is the real bugger. And even that can be taken care of. Ironically, one of the best ways would simply be to extend it to all Americans (single payer). If everybody in the country, including the young and healthy, paid about $200 in monthly premiums, we’d have a sound national healthcare system. We could even extend premium help to the poorest 20% who couldn’t afford them, and it would work. What’s more, the money saved by employers on employee healthcare could then be converted into taxable income for the employees, or simply held by the companies to fatten their profits (and, perhaps, increase their taxes as well, except that most corporations don’t pay their fair share even now, even of the actual taxes on the books). Even today, Medicare manages to get more healthcare dollars into direct, you know, healthcare, than the insurance companies do, as a percentage of premiums vs outlays, because there are no huge executive salaries and profits involved with Medicare. Unfortunately, it would put the poor insurance companies out of the healthcare business. Can’t have that. Socialism may be okay for the police, fire, water, and street businesses, but not for something as inconsequential as the nation’s health.
“Social Security is actually one of the easiest economic problems facing us. By increasing the earnings cap so that all income is subject to the social security withholding, and by increasing the age for full benefits by a year or two, Social Security can be made solvent for decades.”
It can be, but any savings realized in the SS setup will not benefit the SS fund.
That’s the problem. it’s a lock-box of IOU’s.
In the private sector, co-mingling of funds is a no-no, and there’s a reason.