It has been somewhat reassuring to read the Perry-defenses composed overnight by RS-colleagues, but he’s toast.

What now?

I have always prided myself when blogging if I have perceived a “larger purpose” to what otherwise would be perceived as lame-punditry.

In the process, certain trolls have been killed-off [here, @ TeaPartyNation, etc.].

Now, however, it is urgent that we all think outside the box [as they say].

I went to the Red State Gathering to watch Rick announce with my best-friend Bob Guzzardi [we were the two "Yankees" if anyone remembers the Q&A's] and with my son [who loves ragging me about Rick's debating skills].

I went with “Fed Up!” and lapped-it-up. I picked up “The Great American Awakening” [by DeMint] and acquired his signature on the program. I finished indexing the former and now must scrutinize the latter.

I think it’s hopeless, and equating this to the Dukakis-Tank photo is realistic; Sabato tweeted that this is the worst debate-moment in his memory.

I still view The Newt as the statist/elitist BUT I don’t see anything in any of the overnight posts that convinces me that Rick can recover.

I have lost $ on InTrade sticking with him; perhaps I should relocate to DeMint?

It’s now desirable to provide “support” for my pals so that we call can find a way to “move-on”…

@ Moe: “nobody on the Right will want to talk about anything except Perry?s fairly drastic brain freeze.” Correct, and it’s preferable to confront it now than to conjure how BHO would portray it [devoting, perhaps, half of his $Billion to TV-ads inviting Rick to relive this moment].

@ Constitutional: “I trust record and results. Rick Perry has that.” As we all remember when dealing with the SAT’s, this phrase is “true, true and unrelated.”

@ Constitutional: “Conservatism is about substance. I would rather lose 70% to 40% with a conservative than win or lose with a liberal Republican, any day.” I’d rather win because another BHO-term would be doomsday; remember the SCOTUS?

@ macphisto96 [and others expressing comparable sentiments]: “You have to be able to at least do decently in the debates and he?s done terribly for the most part.” But this doesn’t break the 25% glass-ceiling against which Mitt keeps bumping.

@ Serpounce: “That was a fumble right there, and fumbles can decide games, particularly games where you really need your offense to score.” THIS is the best distillation of what transpired, for Perry lost the ball after the fumble. The amazing fact, here, is that he has detailed which departments he’d want to attack [rather than simply thin-out]; in Chapter 5 [in "Fed Up!"], he focused on Education/EPA and opened with RR’s quote: “A government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on this earth.”

@ avagreen: “a Texas gentleman all the way!” Correct, consistently, but begs the question.

@ pttx333: “epitome of an officer (Capt. in the Air Force) and a gentleman (inborn and polished by Mom and Dad). What you see is what you get, and I?ve always liked what I see.” Me too, most of the time; but when he even had to process input from his colleagues/competitors, he not only “stepped in it” and “stuck the pole in his foot” [the ambient metaphors], he “booted” the entire campaign.

@ mich22: “Each time I watch it, it just becomes more funny, and dare I say, the way he handled it when he finally remembered was a little endearing (full disclosure?this is a woman talking).” Each time I watch it [from the male perspective?], I cringe for increasing time-periods.

@ usdebateboard: “I?m *so* done hearing candidate A?s gaffes called brainfreezes, and candidate B?s gaffes called dealbreakers.” We must think pragmatically; brainfreezes and shifting/contradictory-rationalizations are BOTH deal-breakers.

@ texabama: “Rick Perry says something substantive and then begins listing things and is seen as a moron because he blanks. Never mind that it happens to all of us. I?d rather have someone ?freeze? than outright lie or come to a terrible conclusion like it?s OK if Iran has nukes because the Russians have nukes and they never attacked us.” [I had been trying to distill the essence but, here, the Cain-contrast is included to illustrate why Rick can't escape scrutiny by trying to compare/contrast with others.] THIS is not something that need happen to all of us TO THIS DEGREE [particularly when a pattern has emerged, indubitably].

@ goformitt: “other than Mitt, I think Huntsman may be getting a closer look.” John has reinforced his image as a shadow-D; The Newt will prevail unless DeMint [or someone of comparable stature/performance, assuming anyone exists] were to emerge; there STILL is time!

@ txpat: “Don?t throw out garbage from what was clearly and edited video.” Concur, but the “stupid” narrative certainly has been enhanced [much as I recoil @ the "Aggie"-references from the Mitt-sters].

@ eyesopen007: [This posting is so on-point that it must be quoted in its entirety, although Michele has a gaggle of substantial mis-statements--some not probed because of her drop in the polls and remember that she is unable to identify any "deliverables" in her Congressional career.] “we have ‘all’ had a brain freeze, BUT we are ‘all’ not running for President of the United States. I have never seen (nor even heard of) ANY political candidate anywhere, any time, have such a disastorous loss of memory at such a critical time. There is no way to walk this back, or to spin it, or to minimize this in any way. There is just no way any thinking person could believe that he could be trusted to be President. Is he going to have a ‘brain freeze’ in the middle of a nuclear crises? Newt was actually brilliant again tonight, and is well on the way to winning me away from Michele, who was good tonight, but really needs to be great at this point.”

@ septembergurl: “Folks. Perry is done. That was the single worst debate moment I have ever seen. He went into this debate after losing several previous debates. He could not screw up. Yet he did. End of story. We have Gingrich (who won the debate) , Romney (who did all right) and Huntsman (pretty good). That?s it. Well, Cain will be around for a while but he is done.”

To continue….

@ Michael Handley: “I don?t think Huntsman is getting much traction. It looks like it will boil down to Romney and Gingrich. I think Gingrich will win the debates but Romney has the machine on the ground and that count for a lot.” Concur…unless someone else enters the contest…someone who would not need a prodromal period to learn the national/international issues…someone who already is beloved by the TEA Party Movement…someone who opposed Cornyn repeatedly during the 2010-endorsement process…DE-MINT!!!!

@ Bonnman: “I can?t make excuses for his debate performances, Perry bombed?again but I still can?t accept Romney. I?d rather take my chances with Perry, a solid conservative, in the general than Romney.” BHO must be evicted on 1/20/2013; we can’t take chances. Last night, I listened to Aaron Klein discuss “The Red Amy” [his new book that details how profoundly America's future is currently at-risk]. There is a differential-diagnosis of alternatives, and true-Conservatives would rebel if Mitt were chosen; note that Mitt decided not to attend a debate sponsored by Tea Party Patriots [affiliated with 50% of TEA Party Movement entities nationwide] at month’s end.

@ Westbrook348: “I still like Paul the best. He?d bring the troops home and let Israel do whatever it wants to Iran. $1 trillion in cuts the first year. Goodbye to 5 federal departments. States rights restored. And a reigned in central bank, so prices aren?t going up every other day.” Uh, you got his foreign policy wrong [notwithstanding his concern that a border-fence would not permit Americans to slip in to Mexico]. He would NOT SUPPORT efforts against Iran’s Nukes.

@ haner: “His entire campaign was about Energy…and he forgets about the Department of Energy? That?s like Ron Paul forgetting about ridding the Fed.” Perry was on F&F during the 7 a.m. hour; but he did not handle his super-duper gaffe very well. He returned to talking-points [e.g., praising the Marines] without confronting the issue of quick-thinking.

@ Westbriij348/: “it?d be like Cain forgetting his favorite number.” [in follow-up of the above] When we revert to humor, he has become a laughing-stock.

@ gekster: [not truncated, out of respect for prior on-point postings] “The way I look at Perrys flub tonight, is like watching a baseball game. Your star hitter comes up with runners on first and third, and you’re two runs down.
You?re wanting that home run, but he strikes out. With some of the comments here tonight, I would bet if they were at that game, They would leave, and start yelling for the team to trade him. I doesn?t matter to them that the game isn?t over, that there are 5 innings left. Their hero didn?t come through, so they?ve had it. They?re going to quit supporting that team. It is the total opposite of loyalty. It?s not taught in scool no more, so they don?t know what it is. Later they find out that in the bottom of the ninth, the star player hit a grand slam home run, and wins the game by one run. They will jump on board again. The question is, do we as a team want them back.
The answer is yes. Everyone makes mistakes. That?s what make us human.” Having watched Ryan Howard bomb against the Cardinals, I still support the Phillies…but their hitting simply didn’t match their pitching.

@ Westbrook348: “[Newt has "issues" such as] Ethanol subsidies, supported a health care mandate, sat on the couch w/ pelosi, and admits he would?ve voted for the TARP bank bailout. To name a few. But I do love his overall record as Speaker, & I would take him over Romney in a heartbeat. Doesn?t mean I trust him though.” My sentiments exactly!

@ txindependent: “Perry’s overall debate was great, except for this one moment. Unfortunately that gets the most attention in the media. I don?t think there?s any reason he should be over because of one moment. If we let that happen, we?re letting the media pick the candidate again.” The problem is that this “one moment” supports a profound narrative that cannot be dismissed.

@ eyesopen007 : “I am getting to the point where I?m thinking I may have to forgive Newt his bad position on Global Warming and his bad position on individual mandate.” Pivotal is whether he can shake the elitist/statist imagery that these postures suggest.

@ goformitt: [responding to quote immediately-prior] “We were all ready to forgive Perry his welcoming of illegals. Now we can forgive Newt for global warming and health care. And then, lets see ? I guess we might as well vote for Obama?” This is a terrible leap that makes those who link your comments to your candidate CRINGE at the decrement in credibility.

@ lcnsac: “This time in 2007, Huckabee was in the lead. There is still time for someone besides Romney to prevail. I hope Red State gets away from Perry. Good man, but he?s in no way electable and this site has some clout and influence. I?ll vote for the nominee, but I?m hoping Newt?s the guy. He could have done better tonight with the healthcare retort to Maria. The other candidates were able to answer. He did fine once he ‘decided’ to respond. He can be a bit arrogant, but he has always been the most qualified. It will not be Perry or Cain and Huntsman has no appeal to anyone but RINOs” That “someone” could be DeMint!

@ omegamale: “Rick Perry?s backers have been as insufferable as the Palinistas, and tonight they?re going to be eating some humble pie as his candidacy is dead. It couldn?t happen to a nicer group of people.” As a Perry-bot,, I concur with your concerns, but this is why Rush has been careful not to endorse. We provide our input, but we cannot ignore the facts. That is why, perhaps as prophylaxis, these lengthy postings have been generated; we Perry-bots now must gracefully move-on….

@ Septembergurl: “We have three candidates who have the stature to take on Obama and who have not been damaged in the primary process: Gingrich, Huntsman and Romney.” Corrrrrrrect! but Huntsman is a D and The Newt must live-down his statism/elitism; DeMint would not have to deal with either concern.

@ Haners: “This entire primary season has shown me that many conservatives are just like the liberals, they hero worship a candidate and become tribalist over the candidate, against all reason or evidence of incompetence. I always thought conservatives were better than that, but I am relieved that this Cult of Personality worship is only limited to a small subset of conservative.” Perhaps my input this-a.m. will reassure you?

@ Intensity: “What was tough about Perry?s gaffe tonight was it was about something big, something major. I mean, no one would have cared if he could?nt name speaker of house in 1976. But, for a candidate who bases his campaign on dismantling the federal government, this was huge. Very Sad.” CORRECT [and Gretchen Carlson reflected this sentiment on FNC while interviewing him], and this comes from a blogger who has heavily-annotated his book “Fed Up!”

@ snowshooze. “Perry cracked me up. No harm done. And this shouldn?t cause him any grief. So what.. I have done the same, even worse. It means nothing. So.. for the naysayers.. so what. Nobody is perfect.” Perry cracked-up his ardent supporters in a non-laughable way [unless you are laughing AT him].

@ Capitalistpig: “I’m still behind Perry.No one’s perfect,and don’t tell me none of those on the stage has never F-ed up.My little nephew who can barely talk can clean Obozos clock in a debate.Seriously,to call one’s campaign over just for a little mistake that he laughed about is just dumb.” He has been forced TOO OFTEN to reach for self-deprecation.

@ avagreen: “The reporters were enjoying it, as well. He handled it quite gracefully. It?s ridiculous to demand such perfection in performance in public speaking when no one has ever attained that. Why now? I prefer a man who can perform well in governing. Presidential gaffes: http://widetrends.com/famous-presidential-gaffes/” Sure, the reporters were enthralled with what they had wrought; it’s not “ridiculous” to demand the very-best when confronted with the dangers of another BHO-term.

@sethellis: “Walking in there was 25% support for Romney [among students]. After the debate it was up to 40%..” This was but one of his sage comments, but it illustrates why the sooner Rick is supplanted by Jim, the better!

@ californiagold: “this republican field is the weakest and most depressing group of characters I?ve ever seen….If Rick Perry can come back from this, it will go down as the greatest comeback in political history.” Which is why the field must now be expanded.

@ capitalistpig: “when Cains floozies hold their joint press conference,Perry’s gaffe will be long forgotten. Heck,its not even talked about barely on twitter anymore,its now overshadowed by Paternos resignation. I remember giving a speech in school in front of 200 people,I froze for a second,but I still got a ovation. Rick Perry did laugh about it,Greta was easy on him..” JoePa’s fate is sealed [I'm a '72 grad], notwithstanding the gaffe [which is bolded on Drudge.

@ pttx333. "Standing tall with Perry is a given with me, because he represents everything I was ever taught and believe in ? with a few disagreements thrown in, but minor ones....Perry will be fine. I believe it with all my heart." Concur, but we need to ensure both the heart and the mind of the optimal candidate are mobilized to dismantle BHO's "Red Army."

@ onemovoter. [after having dismantled a bevvy of anti-Perry accusations]. Concur these efforts have become yesterday’s news, but what are we doing today so that tomorrow can be perceived optimally?

@ redneck_hippie. “Given the choices available, I choose Rick Perry. I can forgive bad debate performances. Yes I Can. But I will not vote for someone in the primary who does not reflect my principles.” Concur, under normal circumstances, but we live in extraordinary times. This is why DeMint needs to be drafted ASAP!

@ lizzie. “[There are] three days to kill this out-of-proportion reaction to tonight?s CNBC debate where Governor Perry was strong overall, and good-humoured on his one mistake, which is that he has not yet learned that Romney covers his brain blanks by talking even faster without making any sense, which he did tonight at least twice.” It won’t die in 3 hours, 3 days, 3 weeks, 3 months, or 3 years. Mitt is vulnerable, sure, but that doesn’t explain-away what transpired.

@ SoFiMil. “5! for Perry. ‘I may have forgotten Energy, but I haven’t forgotten my conservative principles.’ ” This type of over-reaction is what animated the post-debate “blast” e-mail from Perry…but levity-attempts are wearing thin.

…because I didn’t “call you names”!

I tried to pick the pro-Perry people [and those who had been neutral] and portray them as fellow-travelers, and then to work gently to nudge everyone to how I perceive this new-reality.

Specifically, regarding your intro, I wrote [using the same format I was to employ for everyone else, a-quote-and-a-comment]: @ Moe: ?nobody on the Right will want to talk about anything except Perry?s fairly drastic brain freeze.? Correct, and it?s preferable to confront it now than to conjure how BHO would portray it [devoting, perhaps, half of his $Billion to TV-ads inviting Rick to relive this moment].

I was AGREEING with you!

Please clarify after having read this clarification.

i was using shorthand for Perry-SUPPORTERS [as a group].

Perhaps I misunderstood, but aren’t those who are supporting Perry on their computers [robots] viewable as “Perry-bots”?

I’ve seen this word employed without the pejorative “robotic” imagery but, if this is the key-objection, I would OF COURSE stand-corrected.

Remember, I was including myself in this grouping, and I certainly do NOT consider myself a relfex-supporter of anyone/anybody, absent scrutiny.

After having aggregated support for Rick intensely, elsewhere…
http://www.saveardmorecoalition.org/node/5848/rick-perry-hes-guy?page=3
…I remain dismayed, particularly after his less-than-stellar performance on FNC.

I am NOT discouraged because of the flack I’ve received during prior discussions when arguing his strengths against those who feel he would hurt others in Pennsylvania; I AM discouraged when he fails to “get it” when given the opportunity to appear on the a.m.-shows.

Specifically, the gravamen of the concern is that he can’t think-fast, and that this is a key-trait in a security-focused POTUS. He needed to confront this level of discomfiture rather than pivoting to his talking-points [no matter how many, no matter how cogent].

He cudda/shudda discussed what he detailed in his book [Chapter 9], when he detailed the crisis-management issues he faced after Katrina. He cudda/shudda drew upon his military background and experiences. Heck, he cudda/shudda cited whatever emergency-situation he handled adroitly while Ag-Commissioner.

If he’s into double-digits next week, I’ll eat my hat [and I'll buy one, if necessary].

…then [now don't quote me, please] I’d be forced to support The Newt.

My son will never let me forget these posts, but one comment from him could prove reassuring to us all. As long as the GOP wins the Senate [and retains the House], good conservative legislation will emerge and even a Mitt-ster would not be able to resist signing it. My problem, of course, is whether he would truly DISMANTLE the bureaucracy [as Rick promised he'd do...and I'd believed he could do]. Finally, don’t forget that the TEA Party Movement *MUST* be accommodated.

I hope I answered your question respectfully, without profanity!

…the entire apparatus that had been created [and some extra-$].

Perhaps people like Michele and Rick [Santorum] could be recruited in any anti-Mitt cabal [I use the term loosely, for I'm advocating this effort].

Mitt’s negativity towards the TPM is a motivator that cannot be ignored.

REMEMBER, there will be polling, and most pundits are foreseeing a consolidation process occurring among the already-entered [starved for $].

There is no guarantee that the entire field will continue to be invited to the 2012 debates, a process that would serve to narrow the field drastically.

And a brokered-convention would be [1]–not automatically anointing Mitt, and [2]–open to a candidate who had been a late-entry but who had grown in supporters.

…and it’s easier now to see how I ignored the deprecation when others were characterized in this fashion [Mitt-bot, etc.]. I had used other terms [Caniacs, etc.] because I was more interested in content than in characterization.

NO WAY I viewed my “pals” as automatons, including [in particular] yourself!

First, I don’t believe I wrote that he’d hinted he was poised to withdraw.

Second, I referred to the REM CYCLE [which includes Stages 1-4]; the former occurs when dreaming, and when awakening refreshed, while the latter [with decreasing time devoted to the deepest-"4" as the total rest-cycle plays out] generates a totally different [asleep, not awake] EEG and doesn’t yield flaccid muscles.

Third, when in Med-School, I volunteered for a project @ the Institute of PA-Hospital [before it closed, in west-philly] and was able to generate alpha-waves upon request!

[You can totally disregard this last part, if you?d like.]

…particularly when we [transiently] disagree.

I don’t disagree with this re-recitation of RIck’s positives.

But it’s the blinding-negative that threatens to obscure his ability to deliver his message.

Guzzardi and I were @ the same lecture [by Aaron Klein, last night] and his reaction was also negative to what we both had to confront.

We chatted this-a.m., attempting to provide “support” for each other…while dealing with this super-gaffe [which has rendered the "Morning Joke" PMSNBC-folk beyond giddiness].

He remains optimistic, I wish I could share his feelings.

…and it is as charitably-phrased as is possible, under the circumstances.

[this "NOPE" comment actually was "relocated" from an internal site, supra, but the point therein could be viewed as free-standing]

Seriously, I plumbed the depths of everyone’s input overnight, and I was candidly unable to allow myself to become convinced of Rick’s ongoing viability…as he gravitates to the edges of the debate-stage.

Maybe I watch too much MSNBC [and, per Guzzardi, read more of the NY Times than the sunday-mag x-word], but i want to “keep my enemies closer” when learning potentially-opposing arguments.

But time is tight, and the title of DeMint’s book is telling: “The Great American Awakening – Two years that changed America, Washington, and me.” He is acutely aware of the challenge, and he had announced he wasn’t going to endorse anyone until the primaries started [just last week, if memory serves].

He needs to step into the fray; he will be welcomed and will be able to handle the transient “pinata”-role with aplomb [and a smile].

…but DeMint could compose a complete set of planks over the weekend.

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2010/10/demints_crazy_theocon_views.php

…”rich” is anyone perceived as having a higher income.

Remember, the bottom-line in the voting-booth may be [to the almost-majority who are dependent upon government-$] whether the R’s will cut-off the [rapidly dissipating] “Obama-Money” that the D’s provided.

If CC could be subject to recruitment only a month ago, DeMint could be tapped immediately.

…because he will not be able to energize us unless he starts “yesterday.”

…is now speaking [again] on FNC, eruditely, now about Boeing.

My suggestion that the GOP create the equivalent of a “unity government” would require ego-suppression, but it’s do-able…and this is an emergency!

…and, remember, I HOPE I AM INCORRECT!