James Fallows: Why I Think Rick Perry Did Not Help Himself (Social Security/Ponzi & Galileo)

[pampango]

1) Ponzi scheme, as shown the exchange below with Romney over Social Security. Romney is already in "running as the party's nominee rather than for the Tea Party vote in South Carolina" mode. Perry is not. Among the differences is Romney's recognition that he can't run next fall in Pennsylvania, Florida, Ohio, Michigan, West Virginia, and elsewhere on the proposition that Social Security is a fraud and a failure.

2) Galileo. What Perry said about Galileo was flat-out moronic. Voters don't want to be led by a bunch of eggheads and Ivy League faculty members. But I assert that over time they want someone who sounds like he (or she) knows what he is talking about -- which meant only Romney and Huntsman in this debate. There are times when a crisp, "let's not get too complicated, here are the simple truths" approach can seal the deal. ... 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.

(...(U)ntil this evening's debate, the only reason anyone would use the example of Galileo-vs-the-Vatican was to show that for reasons of dogma, close-mindedness, and "faith-based" limits on inquiry, the findings of real science were too often ignored or ruled out of consideration. And Perry applies that analogy to his argument that we shouldn't listen to today's climate scientists? There are a million good examples of scientific or other expert consensus that turned out to be wrong, which is the point Perry wanted to make. He could have used IBM's early predictions that the total world market for computers would be a mere handful, or the "expert" resistance to public-health and medical theories by Pasteur or Lister...)

To my eye: Romney moves smoothly ahead, Perry raises some of the "hey, wait a minute" doubts that have pulled down Bachmann since her early prominence. Romney and Huntsman, who sounded way smoother and more confident than he had before, were the two who seem as if they realize there is a campaign to run against Obama after the primaries. Obviously I am not part of the Tea Party base. But one of these people is going to have to run for non-Tea Party votes a year from now, and that's the standard I am applying.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/09/why-i-think-rick-perry-did-not-help-himself/244727/

[CBGLuthier]

1. Galileo got outvoted for a "spell"

Perhaps the least apt reference/analogy in political history.

Funny the word spell. I understand its use here. But spell also is a thing of magic. And it was the magic believing simpletons, then as now, that defied Galileo.

The arrogant truth just oozes from Mr. "Bush Without the Brains."

[demwing]

2. The winner of Perry vs. Romney will tell us

How much control the Tea Party really has in the GOP, and thus what kind of General Election we'll see. If Perry wins, it will be Obama vs the tea Party, which is a race I think we can easily win-UNLESS Perry somehow can court the TP, then abandon them, without coming across as Machiavellian. Honestly, I don't think he's got the game for that kind of pretzel twist.

If Romney wins, it will be an election on Obama's record. I still think we'll win, but it will be a real dog fight.

I hope Romney gets buried by Perry. I hope they hand it ALL to the Tea Party, because Americans are fucking tired of the racist, greedy, obstructionist shit coming from that wing of the GOP. They have lost all semblance of a grass roots organization, and are now knows as the party of Billionaires.