In a moment of awkwardness that is sure to get as much attention and YouTube views as the donkey bray that knocked Howard Dean out of the 2004 presidential race, Gov. Rick Perry insisted in last night’s GOP candidates debate that it was crucial to eliminate three government agencies (he meant “departments”) and couldn’t come up with the third. “Oops,’ he said sheepishly, after he had done a credible impression of Monty Python’s “Spanish Inquisition,” which could never quite recall all of their “methods.”
Perry’s brain freeze isn’t likely to improve his standing, though anyone inclined to be fair should be wary of declaring a sudden attack of aphasia conclusive proof that Perry is unqualified to be president: just try re-capturing that elusive word or name on the tip of your tongue when you are in front of an audience, not to mention national television. It has happened to me more than once, and I suspect that anyone who does much public speaking or performing watched Perry’s crash last night with instant horrible memories of similar experiences best forgotten.
But this morning on CNN, Perry’s response to a question about his flub did disqualify him for national office. He was obviously appearing on the morning news show for damage control, and planned what his response would be to the inevitable question. And what was Perry’s plan?
Duck responsibility, and blame everyone else.
“Well, I wasn’t getting any help from either side…” were the first words out of the Governor’s mouth.
What? Was Perry seriously suggesting that it was unkind of his competitors for the nomination, seeing one of their adversaries flopping around the stage like a netted haddock, not to help him out? Or that the debate moderators would answer their questions for him when he can’t do it himself? The other candidates are trying to defeat Perry; they have no obligation to save him from his own gaffes. The moderators are there to ask questions that allow the candidates to show what they’ve got, not to be rescuers of last resort when their skills fail them.
Last night, Perry’s brain freeze proved nothing more than his humanity.
This morning, his attempt to avoid full accountability for his own failing proved that he is dishonest, unfair, petty, cowardly, and untrustworthy.
Ethics Alarms 
You give him too much credit for last night. Sure, everyone can forget something and can’t get it back. However, it’s how he handled the situation in the heat of the moment. He should have recognized that he lost the third “Department” and moved on. Re-directed his statement or ceded his time. It also shows that he was unprepared and hints that he may have been spewing gibberish about things that were actually unimportant to him.
All possible Tim. But there’s confirmation bias too. I have looked like an idiot too many times on stage and in public presentations—once I forgot teh name of my own character in a performance of a play—for me not to give someone like Perry the full benefit of “I”ve been there.” I’m pretty sure he was sure it would come to himna dit didn’t. That makes it worse too.
Jack,
Perry DID get help; Ron Paul suggested “EPA;” it’s right there in the video. Maybe Perry didn’t review the video…or reviewed it, but still forgot how it all went down…or, is so ensnared in denial that he is very much of the character you conclude he owns.
I did not see his appearance on CNN this morning. But, even if I had seen it, I would probably hold off saying that Perry’s attempt at damage control this morning, no matter what he said or how he said it, “proved” anything, except continued motivation to keep himself visible, past gaffes notwithstanding.
Having caught myself being unfair, petty and cowardly enough times, I am reluctant to conclude that another person has “proved” all those things about himself, by way of his turn of phrasing what appears to be a defense of himself for doing something that is inevitable – in Perry’s case, a brain freeze just as you described. I would hold myself suspect of being unfair and petty, if I jumped to conclusions on that scant evidence.
But I will concede that Perry’s failure to acknowledge his accountability, by the way he appeared to attempt to excuse himself, certainly justifies suspicions that “he is dishonest, unfair, petty, cowardly, and untrustworthy.” I don’t count suspicion that a person has flawed character, based on a couple of snippets of evidence, as unfair or petty – just prudent. But the snippets Perry has made available in the past 24 hours certainly seem to “connect dots” in a way that could bolster justification for suspicions about him. To someone who has observed more snippets than just those most recent ones – and who thus has opportunity to see clearly a more complete summation about those snippets, and who sees the summation as it truly is – it is fair to conclude that Perry is exactly as you call him.
I know Ron Paul tried to help him; the point is that Perry would imply that it was his obligation to do so. Paul is so clearly a nice guy that you wonder how he got into politics.
If you want to take issue with “prove,’ I’ll take the point. I tend to think it’s an example of signature significance—no candidate of cahracter and integrity would come up with THAT response, especially after a night to prepare, in my estimation. But it’s not conclusive proof. You’re right.
Jack,
I do recognize and appreciate your point about Perry’s clumsy way of inferring that his rival candidates owed him some “complete-my-sentence-for-me-c’mon-guys-you-know-what-I-mean” help. To me, Perry so far has disqualified himself for being a Senator; I can’t trust him to filibuster. That’s just being honest. I am not trying to hurt him.
Thanks for sharing two GREAT terms today! “Confirmation bias” and “signature significance.” Those are wonderfully “pro” – if only I could say they are more like I “am.”
Remembering them and what they mean (so I can use them), though, even though I do like them very much, is going to be a challenge. Remembering names of three federal departments I might want to see abolished, or even, just remembering three intriguing candidates’ names anymore, is challenging enough.
Luckily, both definitions are on the blog, in many places. Bill James gets credit for “signature dignificance.”
Yep, I did research both terms a little more yesterday, and could not be more pleased that Bill James blazed the trail for “signature significance.” I am somewhat of a baseball fan – I enjoy its unpredictability and many non-obvious technicalities (sort of like life is, to someone who wants to live ethically). I wish I could still actually play the game. Nowadays, all I can do is chew, scratch and spit.
I should have finished one of my earlier sentences with “…- if only I could say I “am” more like them” (referring to the “pro” terms). I am going to be making lots of mistakes here, like I have done almost everywhere else; I hope you won’t mind, and will soon trust that I am not intentionally testing anyone’s patience. I’ll welcome all corrections, especially the repeated ones when I deserve them. I am aiming for a high batting average and lots of clean scoring, without having to rely on slugging and with focus on consistent, precise fundamentals and small ball…
“For someone…” or “As for someone…” not “To someone…” should have been the start of my final sentence above.