Soflasnapper
10-31-2011, 10:33 AM
As no fan of Perry's, still I was impressed by his communication skills in the interview he sat for on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace.
Far from being halting in his phrasing and answers, he was direct and clear. On that performance, I'd assume he was a better-than-average politician in terms of public presentation, and would never have guessed he'd perform so badly in debates.
It's true the format allowed for a longer response than the debates do, and Wallace did not interrupt him much, even as he did press him after the lengthier answer was allowed when he thought the question hadn't been exactly answered.
Wallace continues to impress me as someone who will ask the tough questions or bring up the inconvenient facts, at least to those who are unfavored by the GOP establishment (e.g., Perry, for one of many).
Here's an astounding fact he confronted Perry with. He quoted studies of the Perry tax plan, that used the assumption that people will take either the status quo tax rates or his new optional rate based on which allows them to pay the least in income taxes (a fair assumption), and said the conclusion was that allowing such an option would reduce federal revenues $4.5 trillion dollars over 6 years from its current baseline.
Perry wasn't bothered at all by that, and said he'd make up the difference by cutting spending, which would require $700 billion a year in spending cuts ($700 b x 6 years = $4.2 trillion). However, THAT'S required just to make up the difference in the red ink FROM BASELINE that Perry's plan causes, without beginning to touch the current baseline deficits and debt increases therefrom.
So although Perry presented this well, very forthwith, unapologetic and strong, basically even Wallace was telling him it's a whacked proposal.
Similarly on Perry's job promise, that he'll create 2.5 million new jobs. Wallace pointed out that it was a de minimus promise, promising a very anemic rate of growth that wouldn't prevent the UE rate from INCREASING just from population growth, and that even the hated economic failure president Carter saw over 10 million jobs created in his 4 years. (Go, Chris!)
Far from being halting in his phrasing and answers, he was direct and clear. On that performance, I'd assume he was a better-than-average politician in terms of public presentation, and would never have guessed he'd perform so badly in debates.
It's true the format allowed for a longer response than the debates do, and Wallace did not interrupt him much, even as he did press him after the lengthier answer was allowed when he thought the question hadn't been exactly answered.
Wallace continues to impress me as someone who will ask the tough questions or bring up the inconvenient facts, at least to those who are unfavored by the GOP establishment (e.g., Perry, for one of many).
Here's an astounding fact he confronted Perry with. He quoted studies of the Perry tax plan, that used the assumption that people will take either the status quo tax rates or his new optional rate based on which allows them to pay the least in income taxes (a fair assumption), and said the conclusion was that allowing such an option would reduce federal revenues $4.5 trillion dollars over 6 years from its current baseline.
Perry wasn't bothered at all by that, and said he'd make up the difference by cutting spending, which would require $700 billion a year in spending cuts ($700 b x 6 years = $4.2 trillion). However, THAT'S required just to make up the difference in the red ink FROM BASELINE that Perry's plan causes, without beginning to touch the current baseline deficits and debt increases therefrom.
So although Perry presented this well, very forthwith, unapologetic and strong, basically even Wallace was telling him it's a whacked proposal.
Similarly on Perry's job promise, that he'll create 2.5 million new jobs. Wallace pointed out that it was a de minimus promise, promising a very anemic rate of growth that wouldn't prevent the UE rate from INCREASING just from population growth, and that even the hated economic failure president Carter saw over 10 million jobs created in his 4 years. (Go, Chris!)