I’m at a loss for words. I have never seen anything like it in presidential politics, except maybe Nixon’s breakdown in the final days of his presidency.

In the video, Perry ceases to be a politician. His gestures are those of an evangelical preacher. He waves his arms around, closes his eyes as if to summon the Almighty, and on several occasions, when he thinks he has delivered a good line, he gives the Aggie “Gig ‘em’ sign, thumb up.

Here is one passage:

“This is such a cool state, I mean, ‘Live Free or Die.’ You got to love that, right? I come from a state where they have this little place called the Alamo, and they declared, ‘Victory or Death.’ You know, we’re kind of into those slogans, man. Victory or Death! Live free or die! Bring it!”

From time to time his remarks are punctuated by nervous laughter from the audience, as if people doesn’t quite know how to take his remarks.

Early in his speech he urges people to “write your checks,” referring to a woman who is there to receive them. Then he says, “Gold is good, if you’ve got any in the back yard, because, you know, if they print any more over in Washington, then gold is going to be good, and she [the woman who receives the checks] will take it.” Huh? Gold in the back yard? Where did this come from?

“You know we spend half a trillion dollars a year on tax preparation, and any accountants or tax lawyers out there, I’m sorry dude, but that is too much money.”

“I’m sorry dude?” Can anyone imagine Mitt Romney saying that? Or anybody else in the Republican field?

Then he told what seemed to be an off-color joke:

“I grew up on a farm. I tell people, we lived so far out in the country that everybody had their own tomcat.” I think I get it. I wish I didn’t.

He slurred his words on at least one occasion, when he said, “The bottom line is this. If you want to stop Washington’s violations of the Tenth Amendment, then we must make President Obama a worn term president.” This would not have been noticeable, except that the rest of his delivery was more like a Saturday Night Live satire than a serious address by a presidential candidate. We haven’t seen anything like it on SNL since Will Ferrell was playing George W. Bush at a frat party.

The Rick Perry we saw on that video is not a viable presidential candidate. Something has gone terribly wrong in the Perry campaign, and that something is the candidate himself. That is all I am going to say on the subject. I’m not going to attempt a diagnosis based on a video. But I don’t see how the Rick Perry we see in this video can run for dogcatcher.

From POLITICO:

During Herman Cain’s tenure as the head of the National Restaurant Association in the 1990s, at least two female employees complained to colleagues and senior association officials about inappropriate behavior by Cain, ultimately leaving their jobs at the trade group, multiple sources confirm to POLITICO.

The women complained of sexually suggestive behavior by Cain that made them angry and uncomfortable, the sources said, and they signed agreements with the restaurant group that gave them financial payouts to leave the association. The agreements also included language that bars the women from talking about their departures.

It has always been clear that Herman Cain could not remain on top of the Republican leaderboard. He has only a skeleton campaign organization and no ground game in any early primary state. Is the revelation that he was the target of sexual impropriety accusations from two women while he was head of the National Restaurant Association a “for whom the bell tolls” moment for Cain? Not necessarily. Cain can always say it was a misunderstanding, and his followers may buy it. Rush certainly has. “Inappropriate behavior” is a murky phrase that covers a lot of ground, and different people can perceive it in different ways. The possible reactions of his followers range from mutiny to blind loyalty. Just as important is how Cain responds: whether it is with anger or with dignity. So far he has changed his story several times on Day 1. Not a good sign.

The problem for Republicans is that Cain is the only candidate who is likeable. There is a little of “Mr. Smith goes to Washington” in him, the sincere amateur with the simple message that has a broad appeal. Nobody else had that magic working for him.

Is this the fabled “Perry luck” reasserting itself? Much depends upon how Cain reacts. (So far, not so good. Asking reporters if they have ever been accused of sexual harassment is not a winning strategy.) There is no reason to assume that Perry would be the principal beneficiary of a Cain collapse, if there is one. A good case could be made for Romney (a safe port in the storm), Gingrich (the smartest), or Perry (the most conservative and the most money), perhaps even for Ron Paul, who has a little bit of Jimmy Stewart in him.

But the beneficiary could also be Herman Cain, if he handles himself well, and if there are no more revelations. It’s way too early to write him off. But he is going to have to settle on a story and stick with it. That hasn’t happened so far.

Guess whom the national media is down on because he is inaccessible to them? Michael Calderone, writing today in Huffington Post, says Romney hasn’t met with national political reporters since the summer of 2010:

The Romney campaign, running this cycle from a frontrunner position, has scaled back on the candidate’s accessibility from four years ago and rarely allows for such unguarded moments on the campaign trail. While Romney has taken the stage for primetime debates and has done a few cable news hits, he’s avoided lengthy interviews with magazines to which he spoke in 2008 — such as Time and Newsweek — and hasn’t appeared on any of the Sunday morning chat shows, a traditional pit stop for any presidential contender.

On Sunday, Fox News host Chris Wallace called attention to Romney’s absence from “Fox News Sunday” and his competitors’ programs.

“With Governor Perry’s appearance, we have now interviewed all of the major Republican candidates in our 2012 one-on-one series except Mitt Romney,” Wallace said. “He’s not appeared on this program or any Sunday talk show since March of 2010. We invited Governor Mitt Romney again this week, but his campaign says he’s still not ready to sit down for an interview.”

Romney’s lack of availability is a page from the Rick Perry playbook in his race against Bill White. It worked for Perry, of course, but Romney is another matter. Perry had a safe lead throughout the race. Romney is the frontrunner, but “uneasy lies the crown.” He is going to have to deal with his flip-flops sooner or later, maybe as soon as the Michigan debate. He is showing signs of strain, as when he recently reversed himself on climate change. Romney is predisposed to tell people what they want to hear. Most politicians are–but most aren’t serial flip-floppers.

The Associated Press is reportinghttp://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ieDZlDOUyV-EHX7ENyrCnMqP_8hQ?docId=e04e27573140497094abd171778071e0 that Perry will attend at least five more debates after the Michigan debate on November 9. The obvious conclusion is that the Perry campaign decided that the risk of not debating exceeded the risk of debating. The story serves as a reminder that you can get away with things at the state level that you can’t get away with at the national level. Rick Santorum’s attack on Perry–that he thought Texas governors were supposed to be strong–was an indicator that Perry was going to pay a price for not debating. Nobody paid much attention when Steve Mostyn’s Back to Basics PAC ran ads in 2010 saying that Perry was a coward for not debating Bill White, but when Santorum raised the issue, Perry ran for cover.

The headline for the article is “Two Texas Republicans square off for Senate,” and neither of them is named Leppert.

According to author Abby Livingston, “The March GOP primary has boiled down to two candidates who are drawing most of the attention: Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst and former state Solicitor General Ted Cruz.”

I think the race boiled down to one candidate–Dewhurst–long ago. He has shown no weakness during the campaign. The Dew has piles of money, solid name identification, and he can piggyback on Rick Perry’s conservative record, which he helped assemble. Cruz is a favorite of the ideological set; he wows ‘em at the Heritage Foundation and is a favorite of the tea party, but he ought to be running for attorney general in 2014, not the Senate in 2012.

If there is a race, which I don’t believe, it is between Dewhurst and former Dallas Mayor Tom Leppert, whose name first appears far down in the story, four paragraphs from the bottom, and one paragraph AFTER Elizabeth Ames Jones’. Leppert is well known in the Metroplex, a rich lode of votes with its population of some 5 million. But that still leaves 20 million Texans unaccounted for. Leppert has money too, though not as much as Dewhurst, and he has already run some TV spots. I have consistently said from the beginning of this race that Dewhurst will win, and I see no reason to change my mind.

I think Cruz’s consultant, former John Cornyn operative John Drogin, sold Roll Call a bill of goods, e.g., “John Drogin, Cruz’s campaign manager, is a former staffer to Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas). Drogin is a known quantity in Texas circles, and his decision to sign on with Cruz gives the campaign credibility with Republicans in Washington, D.C., and Austin.”

The description has been applied to the Council on Foreign Relations by U.S. Senate candidate Ted Cruz. From POLITICO:

Ted Cruz, the former Texas solicitor general and tea party favorite for the Republican nomination for Senate, has been focusing some of his harshest campaign trail rhetoric on that longtime villain of those suspicious of U.S. internationalism: The Council on Foreign Relations.

The New York-based group, Cruz said at a speech to a Republican women’s group in Sugarland, Tex., last week, is “a pit of vipers.”

When asked about the Council at another event in Tyler, Tex., on Oct. 15 — Texas, home of Ron Paul and Alex Jones, is the sort of place this comes up a lot — Cruz called the organization “a pernicious nest of snakes” that is “working to undermine our sovereignty,” according to video provided by someone who opposes his candidacy.

What comes next in the article is absolutely amazing:

Well, Cruz should know: The candidate’s wife, Heidi S. Cruz, was an active member of the Council on Foreign Relations until this June.

* * * *

Why Cruz has aligned himself with the loonies in this race is beyond me. With all the serious problems the country is facing, why would he choose to focus on the Council of Foreign Relations? No one in politics has even thought about the CFR since the Cold War ended, except, apparently, people in Tyler and Sugarland and Mrs. Cruz.

This will be a very interesting test. Perry is challenging the underlying rationale for debates, that they afford the American people a chance to see what the candidates believe and how they craft their arguments. Perry’s argument is that you can’t possibly explain your policy positions in the one minute that is allotted to candidates, and that debates are really more about (and these are my words, not his) inducing a rival to commit gaffes than they are about a real airing of views.

Perry has a point–so much so that it could change how candidates view future debates, not just this year but in years to come. If Perry skips most of the rest of the debates, spend his time campaigning instead, and goes on to win the Republican nomination, he could set a precedent that the networks would hate, but it might change the future of American politics.

I wouldn’t be surprised if Perry is MIA in all of the remaining debates. His distaste for them is palpable. He has endured several costly attacks, such as Michele Bachmann’s accusation that he is a crony capitalist and charges that he supported in-state tuition for the children of illegal immigrants. He looks terrible when he is on the defensive, and not much better when he is on the offensive; his attack on Romney’s lawn service that hired illegal aliens fell flat. He is much better at other aspects of campaigning, such as meet-and-greets and speeches before friendly audiences. The only thing he will miss by not debating is the opportunity to confront Romney head to head, and he can do that just as well, if not better, with paid media. Yes, he will be subject to criticism that he is afraid to face the American people (as I suggested in a previous post), but so what? He has to be better off doing something he is good at than doing something he is bad at. If I were advising him, I’d tell him to blow off the rest of the debates.

From Time:

With less than three months before voting begins for the Republican presidential nomination, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney is outpacing the GOP field in the first four primary states, according to a new CNN/TIME/ORC poll. Former pizza magnate Herman Cain is running second in each pivotal early battleground.

The implied narrative here is that Romney could run the table in the first four states and the race for the nomination could be over. This is unlikely to happen, because, as you will see from the poll results below, Romney’s leads in Iowa and South Carolina are precarious.

New Hampshire:
Romney 40
Cain 13
Paul 12
Huntsman 6
Gingrich 5
Perry 4
Bachmann 2
Santorum 1

Iowa
Romney 24
Cain 21
Paul 12
Gingrich 10
Perry 10
Bachmann 6
Santorum 2
Huntsman 1

South Carolina
Romney 25
Cain 23
Paul 12
Perry 11
Gingrich 8
Bachmann 4
Huntsman 1
Santorum 1

Florida
Romney 25
Cain 23
Paul 12
Perry 11
Gingrich 8
Bachmann 4
Huntsman 1
Santorum 1

I sent the previous version to trash, will try to post again later this evening. The gist is, Romney leads Cain by double digits in New Hampshire and Florida, but Iowa and South Carolina are closer. Perry is at best middling in all four states.

Actually, his biggest mistake was saying that debating was his biggest mistake. It says so much about who Rick Perry is–unsure of himself and afraid to face the public except in situations he controls, and yet arrogant at the same time. Doesn’t he realize that refusing to debate would have been even worse than debating? Ducking debates sends the public a message that you do not think that their opinion matters and shows a lack of respect for the great quadrennial exercise of choosing a leader for the nation.

His comment on Fox News was, “All they’re interested in is stirring it up between the candidates instead of really talking about the issues that are important to the American people.” Damn right “they” are–”they” being the media. The value of stirring things up, of course, is that the public can see candidates in unscripted moments, as when Perry made his gaffe that people who don’t support the Dream Act “don’t have a heart.”

In his races in Texas, Perry could put the campaign engine in cruise control and leave it there. He could arrange things so that all his speeches were to friendly audiences. He could address the Realtors (as I heard him do) with full confidence that he would get a loud, enthusiastic ovation, and bask in the prearranged applause. He could surround himself with his security entourage, to ensure that he would not have to answer questions from impertinent reporters. He could refuse to visit with editorial boards and he could concoct phony excuses for refusing to debate, such as the failure of his 2010 Democratic opponent, former Houston mayor Bill White, to release his taxes.

Presidential campaigns are different. You can run from debates, but you can’t hide. No serious presidential candidate can get away with ducking debates these days. He would reveal himself or herself as someone with deep insecurities about how he matches up with his rivals. Perry would much prefer the kind of campaign he can run in Texas, where he can speak to friendly audiences and then head out the back door without answering questions from the pesky media. Just imagine if Perry had said at the start of the presidential campaign what he said in Texas in 2010: He wasn’t going to debate unless Bill White released his taxes, and he made such stipulations for Romney and Bachmann and Gingrich and Paul. In Texas, he could play out the farce in which Mark Miner’s daily press release was about how many days White had gone without releasing his taxes.

People who read or heard Perry’s remarks, made on Fox News, are going to draw the obvious conclusion that Perry didn’t want to debate because he wasn’t informed on the issues and was afraid that he would expose his lack of knowledge. In Texas, Perry was invincible. He controlled the entire government, right down to a compliant Supreme Court that would shield his travel expenditures from public view. He could refuse to debate his rivals–or, as in 2006, when he did participate in a debate, he left immediately afterward, without staying for what was supposed to be a Q and A with the media. State Senator Tommy Williams and a smirking aide stood in for Perry.

So here’s the question: Will Perry participate in the remaining debates? Do his remarks on Fox signal that he intends to run as he did in Texas, finding an excuse to avoid debates? It’s a Hobson’s choice, damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

[UPDATE]

POLITICO is reporting that the Perry campaign has said that he is going to the Nov. 9 debate in Michigan, but after that he is a question mark for some of the glut of face-offs after that.

From the POLITICO article:

Perry spokesman Mark Miner said the issue is using time wisely, and noted their campaign is not alone in that.

“I think all the campaigns are expressing frustration right now,” Miner told POLITICO. “We said we would do Michigan but the primaries are around the corner and you have to use your time accordingly.”

* * * *

The schedule does give Perry an excuse to skip some debates. But, having made his comment that his biggest mistake was debating, he will be under even more scrutiny when he next steps on a stage. And I stand by what I wrote above: “It’s a Hobson’s choice: damned if he does, damned if he doesn’t.”

What to look for: Perry will probably do something he should have been doing all along, which is to run positive media, particularly about the border. The downside is that, unlike a state campaign, paid media doesn’t accomplish much in a national campaign. The public has seen the candidates on live TV, and those images will be last longer in the voters’ minds than paid spots on television. Then he will do a lot of meet-and-greet events as the primaries approach. Perry is very good at these, but the best he can hope for from the networks is a few soundbites.