Saturday, October 07, 2006

Governor's debate: Recap

After watching last night's debate, I have concluded that more debates are needed. There should be at least two more, and preferably three - but of course, Governor Rick "Goodhair" Perry only agreed to do this one. However, I have a way to hopefully prod ol' Goodhair to do at least one more. But more on that later.

As for the rundown on how the candidates did, the short story is that Perry probably won that debate, not because he was that good, but because the other candidates didn't step up like they needed to.

Perry was the most polished, and he said all that you expected him to say. His experience in doing this showed, and compared to the other candidates, he seemed the most confident. However, he also didn't do much beyond what was expected of him. He didn't take any chances because he didn't need to, so we didn't get a real good look at the real Rick Perry. He didn't have to take any chances because no one challenged him enough to take any. Which is why we need more debates with him.

Carol Keeton "Grandma" Strayhorn could have come away the winner of this debate if she hadn't sounded so much like a commercial all the time. How many times did she answer her questions with variations of "We need a governor for all Texans" and "We need to shake up Austin", even if the question wasn't related to her answer? Of the three other candidates, Strayhorn stands the best chance of actually beating Perry, and this debate could have been her moment to shine - and to make Perry sweat. But with only one debate, she probably felt that she needed to get her pitch in while the opportunity presented itself. Too bad she sounded too much like a commercial too much of the time. If there's another debate, the main thing she needs to work on is to stop sounding like a commercial!

Kinky "Kinky" Friedman did the poorest job, but that's mostly because he's not a politician. He had his moments, but they were not often enough. His campaign staff didn't do enough to prepare him for this, and it showed. But something to keep in consideration is that this was his first ever debate, so any one of us going into our first ever debate probably wouldn't do that well, either. He would benefit from more practice so that he can apply from what he learned this time around, and then to use that in other debates. If those occur.

Chris "Who?" Bell needed the most to shine here, and he didn't do it. Is "Al Gore" stiffness part of being a Democrat these days? He needed to show us why we should vote for him rather than Perry (and the other candidates), but all I saw was why the Dems are in a spiraling decline in this state. Don't get me wrong; he wasn't "Kinky Friedman" bad, but he wasn't sparkling, either - and he needed to be sparkling. Instead, he was a monotone robot. If there's another debate, then he should work on being more - lifelike.

Here's what I think should be done to prod ol' "Goodhair" to participate in at least one more debate. Other debates should be scheduled anyway. Like I said above, there should be at least two more and maybe a third. This would give Strayhorn, Friedman, and Bell other chances to polish their act so that their public persona come across better. And in those other debates, there should be a fourth podium as a way to symbolize that Perry isn't there. And be sure to have this podium in the 2nd or 3rd position instead of at one of the ends. That way, the empty podium stands out. The debate coordinator can say each time- that "Governor Perry was invited, but declined."

However, in order for this idea to work, these other three need to get really, really good at this. They need to do so well that Perry will feel pressured to attend at least one more debate if for no other reason than for damage control. If Perry never shows up, then the other three candidates will be free to be their best and be themselves. And of course, the media can keep noting the fact that Perry hasn't shown up, and they can keep asking him during press conferences if he plans to show up at the next debate so the he keeps having to say that he's not. I hope these other candidates give my idea serious consideration. I hope they at least read the e-mail that I am going to send to each of them of this blog entry.

Stay tuned, folks! The festivities are only beginning! :-D

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

The debate was 59 minutes and 50 seconds of blah, blah, blah surrounding 10 seconds of brilliance. Here's the beauty part:

Kinky Friedman said he would call for military martial law in border cities if he becomes governor on Friday, during the only gubernatorial debate scheduled for the campaign season. ... "Yeah, of course, whatever it takes," said Friedman in response to a question from an Austin television reporter about whether he would declare martial law. Declaring it would make his proposal to add 8,500 National Guard troops to the border possible.

Kinky is Awesome said...

Watch this video clip. It is hilarious, it is true, and it is politically incorrect as hell.

Next, read up on Kinky's get-tough illegal alien plan and his 5 Mexican generals plan. Kinky's common sense border security plan is the straight up "minuteman" approach, not Perry's namby-pamby "let's set up cameras" approach. Make no mistake, Kinky is the only candidate brave enough to say we need armed military generals on our southern border.

Now consider Kinky's party affiliation. Kinky has run for office in the past as a Republican and he voted for Bush/Cheney in 2004.

Here is an excerpt from Kinky's interview with Ruminator magazine which confirms that he supported Bush's Middle East foreign policy:
Question: So does this idea of the honorable cowboy have anything to do with why you threw your support behind President Bush in this last election? You did, didn’t you?
Kinky: Yes. I did in this last election, but I didn’t vote for him the first time.
Question: Who did you vote for in 2000?
Kinky: I voted for Gore then. I was conflicted. . .but I was not for Bush that time. Since then, though, we’ve become friends. And that’s what’s changed things.
Question: So it’s your friendship with him that’s changed your mind about having him as president more than his specific political positions?
Kinky: Well, actually, I agree with most of his political positions overseas, his foreign policy. On domestic issues, I’m more in line with the Democrats. I basically think he played a poor hand well after September 11. What he’s been doing in the Near East and in the Middle East, he’s handling that well, I think.

Now maybe you are like me and you were worried that Kinky showed liberal tendencies by voting for a tree-hugger like Al Gore. Well, rest assuredthat Kinky was mistaken when he said that. Kinky's public voting records confirm he didn't vote for Al Gore in 2000 because Kinky didn't waste his vote on any candidate from 1994 to 2004 when he voted for Bush/Cheney.

Maybe you think Kinky's a liberal because he's a Jew. Rest assured, Kinky's views on religion are well to the right of Perry's. Kinky wants to take time during the school day for prayers in schools, and he wants to post the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms.

GO KINKY!!!