(CNN) - After a string of disappointing debate performances, the presidential campaign of Texas Gov. Rick Perry is signaling that Perry might be dialing back his participation in several planned televised Republican presidential primary debates.
The new tack raises the question: Can a major candidate with a track record of weak debate performances pass on nationally televised debates?
No he can't afford to pass on debates, but sound decision-making is certainly not one of Slick's strengths....for the record, neither is debating nor articulating himself, nor doing something good for the middle and lower income populations, nor.......
Therefore, Slick Bush is in "one of them there catch 22's"
Not MAN Enough
By considering not to participate in debates, Rick Perry is simply saying to all of us that he is not MAN ENOUGH to lead as president. One is forced to question how on earth this man became the governor of Texas? Are these the kinds of men produced in Texas? Even George W. Bush, considered as America's most delinquent president, is better than him.
He is demonstrating to Americans that he probably shouldn't have entered the race and that it is time for him to simply drop out. Obviously, he doesn't have what it takes even to continue, since he is not in contention anymore.
After all the circus-like performance, does he really expect well thinking voters even to consider voting for him? The obvious answer is a resounding 'NO'. He is just not MAN ENOUGH to be president.
Does Perry understand why debates are carried out? Debates allow people to understand the contenders: What is in the mind; How much they know; How intelligent they are; How will they present themselves in discussion with other leaders outside US; What they intend to execute during their presidency; How their know-how will affect their decisions etc. etc.
Without passing this stage, people will not be able to cast their votes to a person they are not aware of!
If he can't debate against Romney, how can he debate the President?
Ok.... hmm, I'm confused.
Bush set "low expectations" at his debates and then the press said he pretty much always "beat them" despite the fuzzy math.
So if Perry did not attend the debates, then Perry would then "beat no expectations" because he didn't attend them? Does that make sense? I'm just trying to follow the logic here.
Does a front running top tier candidate not attend debates just to beat "no expectations"?
Say what you will about simple-minded Perry, but even this backbrush, knuckle-dragger had enough sense not to hide his wife from us.
The fact that he SHOULD'VE kept her under wraps based on what an "asset" she's turned out to be is besides the point.
Someone should tell Classless Cain to introduce his wife to America if he's really serious about his run for the presidency.
I don't think he is.
Though many times better than Obama, Perry is not presidential material.
The answer is no. He has to be seen offering solutions and defending them, as well as defending the decisions he has made. Would any of us expect to be hired if we opted out of a critcal part of a job interview?