The bush leagues II
I wrote a post yesterday under the headline, “The bush leagues,” in which I said that one reason for Perry’s poor performance in the current campaign is that he has had it too easy in Texas during the last ten years–that he has gotten away with ducking debates and dodging the media.
Shortly after I posted that article, I received an e-mail from a friend who sent along a column by a well thought of conservative blogger, who is the author of legalinsurrection.com. Legalinsurrection.com is the work of Professor William A. Jacobson at the Cornell University school of law. His post of 9/23 was extremely critical of Perry’s performance in the Florida debate. I have posted his remarks below. I have removed my friend’s comments from the post in the interest of clarity, even though his observations were trenchant.
Michelle Malkin [link removed] has the video of a fumbled attempt to attack Romney. It was a set attack piece, clearly planned in advance, there was no reason to mess it up.
Perry’s answer on the Texas Dream Act was horrid. The issue was in-state tuition for children brought to the country illegally. Someone legally in the country from Arizona would pay significantly more than someone illegally in the country who resides in Texas. The issue was not whether children brought here illegally get an education through high school, or even get to go to college, it’s whether they get a discount that American children do not get. Yet here was Perry’s answer (via Weekly Standard) (emphasis is the blogger’s):
“If you say that we should not educate children who come into our state for no other reason than that they’ve been brought their through no fault of their own, I don’t think you have a heart,” Perry said. “We need to be educating these children because they will become a drag on our society. I think that’s what Texans wanted to do. Out of 181 members of the Texas legislature when this issue came up [there were] only four dissenting votes. This was a state issue. Texas voted on it. And I still support it today.”
Romney correctly corrected Perry by pointing out that the issue was the discount and favoritism towards those here illegally versus Americans from other states. Perry could have defended his policy on the merits without making the “you don’t have a heart” claim. That answer was insulting and right out of the Democratic Party playbook and the type of charge we are used to hearing from Paul Krugman. (links removed)
Perry’s Gardasil answer was just as bad. By now he should have a clear answer to the question, it’s come up so many times before. Yet he justified his executive order by saying he was lobbied on it by a woman with stage 4 cervical cancer. I immediately thought, hadn’t I heard someplace that he didn’t meet that woman until after the order? And sure enough, my vague memory of news reports was better than Perry’s memory on stage (via ABC News):
“I got lobbied on this issue. I got lobbied by a 31 year old young lady who had stage 4 cervical cancer,” said Perry. “I spent a lot of time with her. She came by my office She talked to me about this program. I readily admitted we should have had an opt-in but I don’t know what part of opt out most parents don’t get and the fact is I erred on the side of life and I will always err on the side of life as a governor as a president of the United States.”
The woman Rick Perry mentioned in the Republican debate Thursday was Heather Burcham, a thirty one year old woman dying from cervical cancer. But what Perry left out in his answer was that he met her after he issued his executive order.
I wanted to like Rick Perry and hoped he would be the conservative we had been hoping for. But I didn’t jump on the Perry bandwagon unlike some other conservative bloggers in part because the field was not complete and in part because I didn’t know enough about him.
I brought Katie Thompson on for guest posts over the summer to make the case for Perry and she did a good job. (Note: Katie now is a leader of Students for Perry)
I have been waiting for the Rick Perry of Katie’s posts to show up at the debates. I’m still waiting. The Rick Perry of lore needs to show up real soon.
End of post on legalinsurrection.com
I apologize to readers, and to Professor Jacobson, for the confusion.
Tagged: Gardasil, Katie Thompson, legalinsurrection.com, Michelle Malkin, mitt romney, Paul Krugman, Professor William Jacobson, rick perry, Students for Perry
McLuvin says:
Burka–
I don’t see this passage ANYWHERE on this man’s blog. Can you Permalink?
Reply »
Robert Morrow Reply:
September 25th, 2011 at 2:10 am
Here is the web link: http://legalinsurrection.com/2011/09/minimum-required-debating-smoothness/#comments
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
September 25th, 2011 at 8:44 am
As I said, I received the legalinsurrection.com post in an email. I copied it into my post.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
September 25th, 2011 at 6:05 pm
No, what I copied into my post were my friend’s remarks.
Reply »
Robert Morrow says:
That is all correct, Paul. So how come you and all those genius insider reporters could not figure out that this pumpkinhead Rick Perry was going to blow up his campaign within one month?
Honestly, I am a little stunned myself. I guess it’s true – Perry really is an empty suit as his critics have been charging for 20 years. The Perry for President campaign is OVER. Stick a fork in it, it is done. Perry has finally revealed to a national audience just a glimmer of who he really is.
Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall,
Humpty Dumpty had a great fall.
All the king’s horses and all the king’s men
Couldn’t put Humpty together again.
The GOP opinion makers have summarily fired Perry; and what sophisticated big money donor is going to write a $200,000 check to a Perry Super PAC for a guy who can’t even walk and chew lavendar bubble gum at the same time? Nobody – and if they do they need to have their head examined.
Web Verdict on Perry: Brutal – http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/64295.html
There is absolutely no way Rick Perry is going to waltz for 13 more months into the White House without a fellow named “Lane Denton” chiming in. And if folks don’t know who Lane Denton is, I suggest they start googling “Lane Denton Rick Perry” or “Lane Denton John Chrestia.”
There is no recovering from what we have seen from Perry. It is ludicrous. No matter what seasoning the cooks Dave Carney, Mike Toomey, Ray Sullivan, Mike Baselice, David Weeks put into the soup, the folks are not going to eat it.
I think there is a good chance Perry quits the campaign for good in 2 months. If you are Dave Carney what do you do? The GOP opinion makers have fired your candidate. The donors will not give him money. Your tell your candidate not to debate or talk to reporters when he is ahead. Ok, what do you do when you are behind?? Demand a bunch of debates, just to get slapped around again?
I just wish this farce would end sooner rather than later. It seems obvious that Perry did not to do this – but he was dragged into it by his donors, his groupies/entourage (think Bill Crocker) and a political wife lusting for adulation. Has Anita smiled twice in this POTUS campaign? She was zero for 2010 campaign.
I have plenty of rotten tomatoes left to chunk, but I would just as soon save them for another fool.
Reply »
Jimmy Reply:
September 25th, 2011 at 1:56 pm
I think Rick Perry may not have some of the necessities to be, let’s say, a field manager, or perhaps a general manager.
Reply »
John Johnson says:
Perry loses Florida straw poll. How’s he positioned now, Paul? This one was supposed to be a walk for our Gov, wasn’t it?
Reply »
paulburka says:
He’s still positioned very well in the polls. Look at Real Clear Politics average of polls for the Iowa Straw Poll. Perry is well ahead of Romney.
Reply »
Dave Reply:
September 25th, 2011 at 8:48 am
Assuming you meant the Iowa caucus, the latest poll was three debates ago. I would guess things have changed a bit
Reply »
paulburka says:
I remember Karl Rove pointing out the difference between an event and a process. A debate is an event. An election is a process. Do not confuse the two. Perry had a bad event. That doesn’t necessarily mean that the election is going to go badly for him.
So, Perry lost a straw poll to someone who is a virtual unknown. If he had lost to Romney, that would have mattered.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks Reply:
September 26th, 2011 at 8:19 am
Paul, you discussing this with people who value style over substance. How can they understand the difference between an event and a process?
The MSM invented the soundbite for them.
Reply »
retrocon Reply:
September 26th, 2011 at 9:03 am
Don’t forget that Romney has not participated in the straw polls, meaning his campaign has done no organization of delegates or bringing them in for the vote, no speeches or glad-handing prior to the vote. Keep that in mind when you evaluate the straw polls. Opinion polls putting a named Republican against Obama have shown Romney as the one who beats Obama by the widest margin.
Reply »
John Johnson says:
In Florida, Romney has never done well. Perry was supposed to be their “darling”. They both get beat by an unknown, with Perry only getting one more percentage point than Romney.
We’re talking about the South, Paul. This is not going like it was projected for Perry. In his debate follow up speeches to the Florida straw poll participants he looked uncomfortable and he sounded awful. Unless he comes across as a bit more relaxed and finds a way to get that “I’m in control” natural smile back on his face, he is toast.
He can pound on Romney all he want to about Mass. healthcare, but he has cronyism, immigration and social security issues hanging around his neck. They are not going to go away, and he can’t change his position. Besides, I think that there might be more issues that could harm Perry that haven’t even been broadcast yet. We’ll see.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Like taking away the right to vote in an election…everyone, including the tea party members.
Reply »
Kenneth D. Franks says:
I would have said “more importantly” or “most importantly” but that is probably only because I taught some English classes in a previous life. The rest makes sense to me.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Is this the blog link you meant to include?
http://legalinsurrection.com/2011/09/the-rick-perry-of-lore-needs-to-show-up-real-soon/
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
September 25th, 2011 at 6:23 pm
Yes.
Reply »
anita says:
Perry’s quickly becoming a man without a country — he’s not pure enough for the tea party/wing nuts and he appears unelectable to the less rigid rank and file R’s. Unless something happens to change the equation, he’s a dead man walking.
Reply »
donuthin says:
Dumb,lazy spoiled and self-centered but lucky up to this point. Hopefully his luck will run out and dumb is kinda hard to overcome.
Reply »
Texas Medai says:
It’s because the Texas political media is “both dumb and lazy”, and haven’t done the job of exposing statewide candidates in Texas. Look at the shortfalls we’ve had since the 2006 GOP tax swap scheme, and those who implemented are not being held accountable by the media in Texas.
Reply »
donuthin says:
I agree to a large extent, but then again, at some point, citizens must become more analytically and less naive. I think it is just too much work for many and so they take the easy way out and buy into the rhetoric.
Reply »
donuthin says:
my above agreement was with the comments of Texas Medai and not with the Morrow comments.
Reply »
Jerry Only says:
morrows comments are about the only thing that could distract me from sunday football.
Reply »
WUSRPH says:
You know it is just possible that Perry went to that dinner, if he did, because he wanted to join in honoring Bettie Naylor…He had to know her from her work at the Leg. where, sometimes despite the cause she was supporting, she has always been a respected advocate. Even the Rick’s of this word sometimes do the right thing for the right reason. (My God, did I just say something nice about Perry? Well sometimes the truth requires us to go against our basic instincts.)
Reply »
Robert Morrow Reply:
September 25th, 2011 at 3:52 pm
Oh, Rick was definitely there. My source – a lesbian & a reporter by trade – was sitting at his table.
And in her experienced opinion, Perry was “cruising” for men out in the hallway. Anita was not with him.
Also, Perry signed a Hate Crimes bill in 2001 that made homosexuality a protected class.
After the near political death experience with the 2004 Geoffrey Connor brouhaha, Perry radically changed his political profile, like a chameleon lizard changing his colors. Camouflage, if you will. Remember, Perry had appointed Connor to be Sec. of State. The *rumors* that I have many other folks have heard are that they were boyfriend-boyfriend for years before that, with Perry constantly granting Connor favors such as board appointments and so forth.
By 2005 Perry was leading the charge against gay marriage. Perry even supported the underlying law that the Supreme Court overturned in Lawrence v. Texas. That law of course criminalized sodomy.
I think Lawrence v. Texas was unconstitional judicial activism… but I don’t support the underlying law it overturned. Perry does …
Reply »
WUSRPH says:
Morrow:
Why don’t you drop the “secret queer” line for awhile…You used it enough….We all know what you believe. If there is any “truth” in it, it will come out eventually without your help…The $1 million “reward” should bring a lot of folks out of the woodwork, if there are any there.
In my 30 plus years around the Leg. the “he’s a homo” line was used against candidate after candidate–and most of the time with no real “proof”…A couple of high Bullock staffers seem even to be convinced that you had to be a homosexual if you opposed Bullock in any way–and especially if you ran against him….They spent a lot of time, trouble and I suppose money trying to prove that this one was, etc. All of it a waste of time.
We even went through several years of questions about Ann Richards’ sexual preferences…as well as Frank Erwin’s and many others. It is time to drop this line….A candidates’ sexual preferences should only be important if the candidate in question is a homosexual and is a hypocrite about it…Other than that…leave it along.
The only partially beneficial aspect of the “is he or isn’t he” gossip was that back in the early 70s it got the minds of the little boys in the Legislature off their then favorite speculation about whom Sarah Weddington might be sleeping with. But I guess little boys will always be little boys.
Reply »
WUSRPH says:
To make it crystal clear..I have no knowledge about Ann Richard’s or Frank Etwin’s preferences NOR ANY REASON TO BELIEVE ANYTHING SAID ABOUT THEM. They were the victims of rumors that were never proven and never should have been spread.
Reply »
Robert Morrow Reply:
September 25th, 2011 at 5:09 pm
How the hell do you know if those *rumors* are true are not? Did you spend your time 24/7 with Ann Richards or Frank Erwin?
Next you are going to tell me Bob Bullock was a teetotaler, a victim of a coordinated rumor campaign of the hundreds of people he partied with.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
September 25th, 2011 at 7:50 pm
Morrow, why don’t you submit your “facts” to Larry and collect your million. If you don’t have any facts to submit, I would suggest that you quit wasting space on this blog blathering about rumors you would like to find are true.
I am not a Perry supporter, but you, sir, are a slanderer and would hope that someone in his camp is collecting your posts on this site for a post election defeat lawsuit against you and your foul, hateful accusations.
Reply »
WUSRPH says:
I did not spend 24/7 with any of them although I probably spent several hundred hours around Ann and more around her staff/etc. over the years and about 100 hours with Erwin….I did spend many, many hours with Bullock and I know what he was and became….I do not know whether the rumors about others are true. No evidence to support them beyond “rumors” ever surfaced…and that is my point…I don’t know; you don’t know and, unless it clearly affected their behavior–as both Richards and Bullock’s drinking did before they both went dry—or they were hypocrites about their beliefs…I don’t care.
Reply »
WUSRPH says:
P.S. To “do you one better” on your claim of experience..I have lived in Austin since 1971 and have been active in politics since the mid 60s. I worked in and around the Leg. from then until 2005 and during that time I heard it all, again and again…I am not now nor have I ever been a fan or supporter of Rick Perry’s (or John Sharp’s for that matter)…There are many reasons to oppose him….All of them of much more merit than your claims that you “know” the truth about him.
Reply »
WUSRPH says:
P.S.P.S. I am done for the day…You can babble on if you want to.
Reply »
Mr. Smith says:
I think this analysis about Perry being sluggish or stupid in the debates, and him unprepared, is not it. The average voter is not judging debate performance, or even watching the debates for that matter. But debates expose weaknesses that can be exploited. Kay bailout couldn’t exploit Perry’s weaknesses with the Wall, or crony capitalism, because she was much worse in those categories. And once Perry won the Primary, voters stopped listening. R next to his name, zombie vote straight ticket. arrrgghgh.
But in a national setting, where others don’t have Kay’s inherent weaknesses, these things can be exploited. Of course, once whomever (and I think it will still be Perry) wins the nomination, all this talk goes away, and its 24/7 attack on jobs, jobs, jobs.
Reply »
Robert Morrow says:
Rick Perry has been running for president for 4-5 years now, and one still sees silly comment like Mark Shields in the media:
“I would say this. Rick Perry is at an enormous disadvantage. Usually, a candidate, when he starts out or she starts running for president, you can spend time in Kankakee and at the Lions Club or the Rotary Club polishing your lines, getting ready, kind of going through a shakedown cruise and boot camp.
He plunged right into it, and he had not, obviously, thought about running for president since he was a sophomore in high school, like most of these people have. Otherwise, he wouldn’t have written that book last year.”
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec11/sandb_09-23.html
The book Fed Up was written specifically for a presidential run! Ha ha. Then Perry both recommends it and disavows it immediately in his presidential race.
Then Perry runs around calling himself “authentic.” Of course, I am falling on the floor, giggling in uncontrolled laughter at *anything* about Slick Perry being referred to *authentic.*
Perry is just like Obama, except unlike Obama, Perry can’t even read his cue cards or *shudder* teleprompter.
The fairytale continues … for another few weeks.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks says:
How silly. You’re either an easily fooled democrat or a political novice if you think Perry is through.
The grownup weren’t fooled by Obama and they will vote next year for Anybody But a Marxist.
ABM in 2012.
Reply »
anita Reply:
September 26th, 2011 at 1:22 pm
I believe it was the grown-ups who put Obama in office, and by a very wide margin.
Reply »
WUSRPH says:
They grownups are also not likely to vote for a “Randist” (ala Ayn) either and that is what Rick is coming off as.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks says:
McCain may have came across as a Randist and thats why he lost. Perry will not.
Reply »
anita says:
McCain just came across as old and strange. His judgment came into question as well when he tapped Palin as his VP choice.
Reply »
WUSRPH says:
If you don’t think Perry is a Randist you obviously haven’t read his(sic)book!
Reply »
Debate Association Singapore says:
Thank you for the auspicious writeup. It in reality was once a enjoyment account it. Look complicated to far introduced agreeable from you! However, how could we keep up a correspondence?
Reply »
heavy duty treadmills says:
whoah this blog is great i like reading your articles. Keep up the great paintings! You know, a lot of people are looking round for this info, you can aid them greatly.
Reply »