Romney Rises to Occasion in First Debate with Perry

The most important thing I noticed is that Romney is looking better than ever based on what I saw at the latest MSNBC Republican Primary debate with Brian Williams and some dorky guy from Politico - John F. Harris, Editor-in-Chief. (Really, it is not fair to put Harris on the same stages as Brian Williams. It's like watching a high school ballerina perform next to someone from American Ballet Theatre.)

The debate started off with a quick round of back and forth between Gov. Romney and Gov. Perry and Romney clearly demonstrated that years of experience in national debates pays off. Romney had clearly anticipated Perry's answers and responses and created a level-headed, common-sense image that made Perry look awkward and overpowered. Romney also looked more rested. Perry looked as if he had been up all night fighting those fires in TX himself.

As a reporter, I would say that the key exchange took place after Gov. Perry attacked Gov. Romney's record of job creation in Massachusetts. In a Reaganesque moment, Romney to interjected "listen, wait a second" as the moderators tried to move on, Here, Romney played his cards well by getting a break for himself early in the debate. Moreover, his comments had a grain of truth.

"States are different," Romney said. "Texas is a great state. Texas has zero income tax. Texas has a right to work state, a Republican legislature, a Republican Supreme Court. Texas has a lot of oil and gas in the ground. Those are wonderful things, but Governor Perry doesn't believe that he created those things. If he tried to say that, well, it would be like Al Gore saying he invented the Internet."

What got my attention is how natural, trustworthy and earnest Romney looked as he delivered those lines. In contrast, Perry looked overly aggressive and wooden as he released the line that "Michael Dukakis created jobs three times faster than you did, Mitt."


Romney took the punch and then shot back: "Well, as a matter of fact, George Bush and his predecessor created jobs at a faster rate than you did, Governor."


"That's not correct," said Perry.


"Yes, that is correct," said Romney.


In all this rapid fire exchange, the inexperienced John F. Harris of Politico looked overwhelmed. Meanwhile, the experienced MSNBC moderator Brian Williams, drew on his vast television comfort level to quip: "Nice to see everybody came prepared for tonight's conversation."

As far as I could tell, the above exchange highlighted the considerable value of previous experience with presidential primary level debating. It is not a natural talent. It is an acquired skill that gets better with practice. Accordingly, my prediction is that Perry stumbled a little tonight, because of his inexperience in debates, and that Romney probably made himself some new friends and supporters. Perry is a steep challenge to Romney and Romney rose to the challege. In reaction to this debate, I'm expecting Perry to stall a little and to Romney to flip up quite a bit.

All in all, however, I'm still supporting Gov. Perry. Nevertheless, I think Romney had a good answer for how his investment career created net jobs for Americans. I know this was an issue with Carly Fiorina in the last CA Senate campaign whose business expertise came off as almost hostile to the needs of workers. I'm also sensitive to the fact that polls show Romney clearly beating Obama. I like that Perry is okay suggesting Obama is a "liar." He is. I also appreciated Romney's new strength and decisiveness. Since I last paid attention to Romney, it appears he is getting a better message that makes sense by suggesting Obama is a nice guy, "who doesn't have a clue" about how to turn around the economy. I think Romney's comments about Obama being a pay phone guy in a smart phone world are quite compelling and remind us that Obama is not that smart and hasn't produced results the American people expect. If anything, Obama is the rigid unchanging ideologue who doesn't seem normal, while Romney looks like the sort of flexible guy who can learn from mistakes and produce positive results.

As a political scientist, I'm reminded of how much appearances matter in presidential debates. In the future, Gov. Perry should work harder at the debates. He needs to be more rested and relaxed ahead of time - no matter what is happening with his workload as an active TX governor. I'm also reminded at the extent to which success in debates is simply a matter of practice, rehearsal, and experience.

Finally, as someone who knew the young Marxist Obama, I was gratified to see Speaker Newt Gingrich come straightout and criticize bureaucratic socialism. I'm going a rally for Gov. Perry in Newport Beach tomorrow a.m. If I get a chance to say hello to Gov. Perry face-to-face, I'll share the same news I shared with Speaker Gingrich: the Obama I knew was a radical revolutionary looking to overthrow the U.S. capitalist system. In this context, however, I was proud to see Gingrich lash out at the mainstream media for seeking to divide Republicans and distract attention from Obama's dangerous weaknesses and failed economic policies. The mainstream media ignored my warnings about Obama's commitment and ties to Marxist socialist thought in 2008. They do not deserve any protection from the Republican candidates given the misery they inflicted on the U.S. by not fully vetting Obama in early 2008 or fully researching him in the summer of 2008. I expect that anti-Obama activists will also benefit - as has Gov. Romney - from increased experience at the national level.

John C. Drew, Ph.D. is an award-winning political scientist.

Implications of President Obama's Marxist Roots: On the Air with Prof. Paul Kengor - Author of Dupes

I'm steadily trying to get out the word about young Obama's commitment to Marxist thought.  I'm grateful to the folks at the Glen Meaken show for giving me some air time this morning.  Check it out here.

I was honored to be interviewed this morning by Dr. Paul Kengor. (Kengor was the guest host for the Glen Meakem radio program in Western Pennsylvania.) Kengor is a professor at Grove City College and the executive director of the College's Center for Vision and Values.

As you may know, Kengor is a regular featured columnist at Townhall.com, a web-based publication primarily dedicated to conservative politics. I know him, however, from his most known best selling book, "God and Ronald Reagan." Kengor is currently finishing a major work on Ronald Reagan’s role in his administration’s effort to undermine the Soviet Union.

I was grateful to learn that my report on young Obama's commitment to Marxist-Leninist thought has been published in Kengor's newest book, “Dupes: How America’s Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century.”

On the radio show, I indicated that I knew President Obama when he was still a student at Occidental College. I graduated from Occidental College in 1979 and I was the founder of the Democratic Socialist Alliance. When I knew Obama, he was definitely a Marxist Leninist looking forward to an immenent revolution.

In my view, Obama’s attraction to this radical ideology as a young college student helps explain his absolute determination as President to pass the “progressive” agenda of the liberal left. While I painfully transformed into a church going, Ronald Reagan conservative, President Obama has never described a similar political evolution - away from socialist thinking - for himself.

You can listen to the whole radio show by clicking here.

John C. Drew, Ph.D. is an award-winning political scientist.

Palin Hearts Reagan: Her Success Shows Why It Mattered to Alaskans

The life stories of charismatic leaders invariably reveal that they are ordinary people who take big risks. Even Napoleon Bonaparte, for example, was dismissed by his Austrian father-in-law, Francis I, as simply “a gambler.”

These hardy risk-takers, however, almost always rely on a handful of techniques to improve their odds of success – including a startling willingness to pattern their lives on a pre-existing model of political and military success. Young Abraham Lincoln was fascinated by the life story of General George Washington – the first U.S. President. Saddam Hussein modeled his political career on the example of the USSR’s Joseph Stalin. Fidelity to an existing political leadership model assists charismatic leaders in maintaining their extraordinary levels of self-confidence. It can also – if they pick wisely – provide them with sure solutions that make a difference.

A strong contemporary example of this phenomenon came to me from reading Sarah Palin's new book Going Rogue: An American Life (2009).

In Going Rogue, Palin indicates that she displayed an early interest in the ideas and leadership style of President Reagan while she was still in college. "I looked forward to every poli sci lecture,” she writes, “I attributed my enthusiasm to patriotism and a fascination with current events. I was also eager because this was the 1980s and our study centered on one of the most inspiring individuals ever to occupy the White House, Pres. Ronald W. Reagan."

In particular, I was impressed by the way the young Sarah Palin dug into one of the most important practical secrets of Reagan's success when she writes that "I also appreciated his focus on a handful of overarching themes, such as reining in the intrusiveness of government, building a strong national defense, and cutting taxes.”

In November 2006, of course, Sarah Palin became both the youngest person, at 42, and the first woman elected as the Governor of Alaska.

Consistent with the examples of other charismatic leaders, Palin indicates how she drew confidence from Reagan’s example: “It was a humbling experience to step in to lead an administration that would serve a state of this size and diversity,” she writes, “ I knew we could face the challenge with anticipation and without a sense of overload that we observed Ronald Reagan's principles: pick your agenda issues and focus on those; empower and motivate your departments and staff to implement your vision in other areas. Reagan concentrated on a few key issues and knocked them out of the park. That gave him the political capital to effect change in many other policy areas.”

In her case, she reasoned that if she focused on Alaskan resource development, fiscal restraint, and ethical government, she would create the victories and momentum that would allow her to later deal with “…education, services for special needs and the elderly, job training, unemployment, and social ills in rural Alaska."

True to her vision, Gov. Palin cut back on the legislature’s construction projects in her first budget and won a bipartisan ethics reform bill – all in less than a year. By August 2008, she had negotiated a natural gas pipeline deal. All in all, Gov. Palin experienced extraordinary success as measured by her high popularity with Alaska voters. Her successes in office would attract the attention of the McCain campaign in the form of an offer to serve as the Republican Vice-Presidential candidate in 2008.

For me, the lesson of this story is that it is useful for voters to ask candidates which politicians do they most admire? More than most of us suspect, the answer to this seemingly innocence question may be extremely useful in predicting their later success in elected office.

John C. Drew, Ph.D. is an award-winning political scientist.

Obama No Reagan: Reaction to First Press Conference

Obama's first press conference was a disaster. He went on too long after the first question and seemed too anxious to make his own argument instead of dealing directly with legitimate questions. He also looked uncomfortable calling out the names of the press members and did not seem to know where they were sitting. President Reagan did a better job with these little details.

I also found it annoying that Obama set up a fake model of conservative philosophy. Personally, I'm glad that automatic counter cyclical systems are in place that help the government move quickly to counter a recession - unemployment payments, food stamps, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). To make it sound like conservatives want to see nothing at all happen is just silly from my perspective. A reduction in the payroll tax, for example, would have an immediate positive impact.

The main thing, for me, is that Obama bored me. I was switching channels by the middle of the press conference and I'm someone who cares deeply about U.S. politics and public policy. If I get bored...then there are real problems with Obama's delivery and responsiveness to the questions. Based on this performance, I guarantee fewer viewers will show up for the second press conference.