The sudden emergence of Texas Governor Rick Perry as the GOP front-runner is likely the reason that Monday’s presidential debate focused more on inter-party politics than in previous debates. As reported by various news sources this week, candidates took great interest in challenging the political record and positions of Perry, instead of merely contrasting their own positions with those of President Obama, who is certainly not a barrier to securing the Republican presidential nomination.
Former front-runner Mitt Romney took the lead in the inquisition, likely because he has the most to gain should Perry drop in the opinion polls. Romney questioned Perry directly regarding his stance on Social Security, asking if he believed that the program should be dismantled and given to the states to handle. Perry’s reply indicated that Social Security has many problems that need to be fixed, but that, as quoted on CNBC’s website, “We’re not going to take that program away. Rather than trying to scare seniors, like you’re doing and other people, it’s time to have a legitimate conversation about how to fix that program so it’s not bankrupt.” Romney responded to a statement made the previous week by Perry, when he claimed that Social Security was a mere Ponzi scheme, stating that the term was “unnecessary and frightful to many people.”
Both Representatives Michele Bachman and Ron Paul made similar attacks during the debate. Referring to an executive order given by Governor Perry requiring that young girls be vaccinated for a sexually-transmitted, cancer-causing virus, Bachman accused him of backing the drug company that manufactures the vaccine, Merck. Moreover, Paul questioned whether Governor Perry truly deserves credit for the economic success of Texas.
The supposedly harsh treatment of Perry can potentially be explained in two ways. First, since the candidate has only recently entered the primary race, he has benefitted from a great deal of mostly positive press. This first view is articulated by GOP candidate Rick Santorum, as described in an article by Fox News, where he is quoted as saying that “this is the first time in a month he’s had to answer for some of the policy questions,” and “he’s gotten a free ride for a month from the media.” The second explanation is that all of the candidates are implicitly agreeing to a strategy based, quite simply, on the child’s game king of the hill. In other words, it is rational for Michele Bachmann to join with Mitt Romney in attacking Perry to prevent him from gaining too much momentum and leaving the other candidates in the dust. At this point in the contest, it is simply a game of common interest.
As with most political discussions, the real explanation lays somewhere in between the two options, or even a combination thereof. Certain individuals tend to secure better press coverage than others, and this is likely a point of contention for those who do not benefit; the natural desire, therefore, would be to hold competitors equally accountable for their actions and words. And, since only one candidate can – under normal circumstances – be king of the hill, then the others must focus their attention on that person and hope to be the one to take his or her spot.
We shall see who will be defending that spot when the next GOP primary debate airs on September 22nd.
No comments:
Post a Comment