Perry On Hannity: Slams Hoyer, Touts Package Of Washington Reforms
He ought to be doing better than he is. Policy-wise, Perry is a whole lot better than Herman Cain is; that’s unquestionable.
Perry can’t outdebate Gingrich, and that’s an issue. He also doesn’t have the baggage Gingrich has, either. Except for that business with the in-state tuition for illegal aliens, which is a problem not just for Perry but for the conservative movement – in that the hostile attitudes toward illegals rub off on Hispanics and drive them to the Democrats when there is no way in hell that should happen.
But that’s another post.
Anyway, Perry did 15 minutes on Hannity this afternoon, and he proved again that his problem is he can’t spew out his thoughts efficiently in a 30-second debate response – not that he doesn’t have the thoughts to spew. In fact, this guy – if he could ever recapture the GOP electorate’s attention (and if Gingrich melts under the media scrutiny he’s about to get Perry will have another shot at the anti-Romney vote) – really could be the transformational-type conservative president America has to have in order to recover from Obama.
Some proof of that is the stuff Perry was talking about in this clip – namely, that he’d like to put an 18-year term limit on Supreme Court justices and other federal judges, make Congress a part-time body (that goes back to the old Lamar Alexander cut-their-pay-and-send-them-home pitch, which was a decent campaign gimmick way back when but never really got anywhere – but in light of Peter Schweizer’s book about how completely corrupt Congress is with its insider trading, it’s not a bad political move to bring it back up now) and freeze federal salaries until the budget is balanced, and among other things also privatize Fannie and Freddie. All of that would constitute a major reform agenda, even though much of it would be really tough to pass unless he could get it to catch on in a general election and grow some coattails out of it.
But transformational, aggressive reform ideas are what the country wants. Which is why the GOP can’t nominate a guy like Romney, who at best would sand the edges, to run against Obama. Bold colors, not pale pastels. Perry offers that. The question is whether he can get some traction going.
Another brain freeze will kill him, though. He’s got to have a lot more witty moments like Saturday and a lot less “oopses.”
But that’s just my take. Listen to this and decide for yourself.
We need a rock star, however superficial that seems, with significant substance. That’s a tall order, but many of us hoped Rick would be that substantial star. We hoped he would overwhelm drivers in the media and in the GOPher establishment, but his lacksuster performances and “oopsies” in the debates have dashed that hope. No one expected anyone in the lineup to best Newt in the debates, but had Rick been able to hold his own – proving he wouldn’t be an epic failure in a debate with Barry – he’d be impossible to ignore and would have widespread support. Couple that with his excellent policy positions and the enthusiasm would be palpable.
As it stands, now, no one is excited about anyone or anything save watching Newt wipe the floor with Barry in a debate. That ability does not a president make, especially when the glib debater is ideologically untrustworthy.
Hopefully, Rick can mimic Reagan and turn his campaign around – he’s the real anti-Romney. If he doesn’t, we’ll have Barry for another four years and the country will be in ruins.