'Wait. You mean they want to specifics?
Uh-oh.' (Leschnyhan/Dreamstime.com)
Rick Perry delivered a speech to the Georgia Public Policy Foundation this morning, a speech that had been billed as a major public policy address ... but somehow he forgot to deliver the policy. After saluting President Obama and the military for killing Anwar al-Awlaki, these were the first words out of his mouth:
I’m pleased to be with you for a few minutes this morning. Over the next several weeks, I will be laying out important public policy initiatives to get America working again.
As far as policy goes, that was it. The rest of his speech was devoted to attacking Mitt Romney, defending his record as governor of Texas, and delivering vague Palinesque-platitudes about his political philosophy. Afterwards, the host of the speech was nonplussed:
The head of the group, Kelly McCutchen, said afterward he was concerned that Perry veered heavily into presidential politics, which could endanger the group's tax-exempt status.
"He'd been told to stick to policy" McCutchen said. "I don't think he did that."
That's an understatement, but still, I have no sympathy for McCutchen. If you invite a presidential candidate to deliver a speech, you're going to get presidential politics. Sure, Perry was a hack about it, but if that's not what McCutchen expected, than he hasn't been watching the campaign.
For a speech billed as a policy address, it was incredibly short: just 1,303 words, about half as long as a random speech to the VFW given last month by Romney. To the extent Perry's speech had a theme, this captures it:
As Republican voters decide who is best suited to lead this country in a new direction by stopping the spending spree and scrapping Obamacare, I am confident they will choose a nominee who has governed on conservative principles, not one whose healthcare policies paved the way for Obamacare, a path blazed with higher premium costs and thousands of lost jobs.
I have a lengthy record, and it has sometimes ruffled feathers. But sometimes you have to shake up the system.
At least to me, that seems like pretty weak stuff — it comes off as unpleasant mix of childishness, anger, and defensiveness. Perry simply asserts conclusions without explaining why he thinks that they are correct, which seems either arrogant or dimwitted or both. Reading it, I can only think that Rick Perry is either playing a rope-a-dope by holding back a more coherent rationale for his candidacy and line of attack against Romney ... or he just doesn't understand what it takes to successfully run for president.