GOP Debates: Round 5-Florida

Yes, I know. I missed round 4. Actually, I didn’t. I just haven’t blogged on it.

As always, the videos are at the end.

I’m going to approach things a bit differently this time.

First I want to congratulate CNN and Wolf Blitzer. This was by far the best designed and moderated debate so far. I was worried at the beginning with their opening montage and introductions, but once they got to the meat, it was enjoyable to experience. My only significant gripe is that I don’t think former Governor Mitt Romney (R-MA) and Governor Rick Perry (R-TX) should be next to each other. CNN put them there and quite often went to a camera shot that had both of them on screen while one was talking. Made it often look like they were the only two there.

For the first hour I was generally happy and amazed. Every single candidate, even former Governor Jon Huntsman (R-UT) and Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX-14) impressed me at some point. For the first time I really felt that we have a great group of candidates here. Some people had problems with former Romney going after Perry on Social Security, but I didn’t. As I keep saying, the frontrunner(s) will remain the frontrunner(s) unless you go after him (them). Romney made some good points, too, although I think in the end he lost on the exchange, because Perry was prepared with a great one-liner about Romney’s book.

Perry seems to be following the President Reagan (R-USA) playbook. He has lots of good zingers and one liners. I don’t think he has quite the delivery of Reagan, but he’s not bad. But he needs to be better on substance. When he gets away from his strong suits, and from his one liners, he stumbles a bit. This will come in time. I’m sure he’s been in a few debates as Governor of Texas, but he’s not faced the caliber of candidates or the level of intensity of the scrutiny that he’s facing now.

Unfortunately, the second hour we returned to earth. Huntsman and Paul lost me completely. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. I really don’t want to see Ron Paul at any more debates. He makes the entire GOP look bad. Also, Perry and Romney hit some issues that weren’t their bread & butter ones and they also stumbled.

But Romney and Perry were the two frontrunners going in, and they’re still the two frontrunners. No one made any significant movement in their direction. I’m not sure if they really changed much amongst themselves either. I think they both made some good points, and both occasionally struggled. I’m hearing on my Twitter feed that Romney looked awful, and that he had the best performance, which leads me to believe that I’m right, that nothing really changed between them last night.

Now to the rankings. I’m going to start at the bottom and work up this time.

Ron Paul: Titanic level disaster. Vote him off the island. Now.

Jon Huntsman: He’s just way too far to the left. He has some good ideas about some things, but he’s a traditional politician. A twentieth century one. You’ve heard me rip on twentieth century politics before.

These two were so far below everyone else that they deserve special mention. Everyone else did at least a passable job, just not spectacular.

Former Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA): I’m going to say he’s next. I’ve mentioned every single time that Santorum is either great or awful during debates. It’s because he’s combative and thin skinned. I think he’s been working hard on fighting his tendencies here, and I give him credit for that. Unfortunately, that means that he’s coming across much more subdued. He had a passable performance, but completely non-memorable.

Herman Cain (R-GP): Cain has been steadily improving at the debates. He’s obviously been putting in quite a bit of work. If he’d been as good in the first debate as he’s been in the last two, he may have made some noise. Perhaps he still will. I was very impressed with Cain last night. The only reason he’s down so low on the list is that others have raised their games as well.

Rick Perry: I really don’t have much of a problem with the Gardasil issue. He admits it was wrongly handled, which puts him miles above Romney who still thinks RomneyCare is a good idea. However, I also don’t have any problems with anyone attacking him on it, as long as they stick to facts. He’s absolutely perfect on Social Security, but he’s definitely left himself open for attack here and we’re going to see more scenes like what we saw last night with him and Romney. However, I’ve said before that he’s weak on illegal immigration, and it’s true. He’s very weak here and his answers on this issue were not reassuring. At all. I had him first earlier in the night, but he dropped to fourth in the second hour. And illegal immigration is a big part of why.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA-06): Frankly, Newt should be first or second, and it’s not his fault he’s not. While CNN overall did a good job last night, they still had a problem with letting candidates disappear for large parts of the night. That’s got to be hard to avoid with so many people up on stage. It certainly happened to Newt. He disappeared for long periods. But when he was on screen, I liked what he was saying and I liked his delivery. Probably one of the most impressive nights he’s ever had, when he was visible, and I’m on record as saying he’s the candidate I would least want to debate.

Mitt Romney: There’s really not much difference between any of the top 4. I put Romney above Newt because he didn’t disappear and above Perry because I thought he was a bit less uneven in his performance. His highs weren’t as high as either Perry or Newt, but his lows weren’t as low either. However his attempted attack on Perry and the Texas economy fell completely flat. He knows he needs to attack Perry on something, and fiscal issues are his best bet, but he’s going to have to come up with a better plan than “Four Aces”. Probably Romney’s worst moment in any of the debates so far.

And the Oscar goes to…

Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (R-MN-06): She’s up here because she treated last night like a marathon. Unlike others who went for some quick hits early and then fell flat, she stayed in focus the whole evening. She’s obviously found an attack point on Perry that she likes in Gardasil. While I don’t agree with her position on it, she shows quite a bit of passion and is believable. And there are a lot of people out there who share her viewpoint. But she was good to very good in every single answer she gave last night, if I recall correctly, and unlike the rest, actually improved as the night went on. Her one fault is that she’s very talking point oriented, and sometimes goes to the talking point instead of actually answering the question. I’ve noticed this every single debate. That’s not altogether surprising. Most politicians do this. It’s surprising that in this field she’s the only one who does it consistently. Having said all of that, this was the Michele Bachmann we saw earlier this year, who has all but disappeared since then. I’d love to see more performances like this. She still almost certainly won’t get my vote, but last night performance is what I’ve always hoped to see from her.

 

GOP Debates: Round 3-Iowa

As always, the video of the entire debate is at the end.

Most of the GOP hopefuls squared off in Ames, IA last night for our third Presidential Primary debate. Like last time, the good news for many of these candidates is that very few people were likely watching. Because there wasn’t much good news in this debate other than that.

If you’re interested, you can find my thoughts on the first and second debates by following the links.

Last time I said that former Governor Mitt Romney (R-MA) was the “winner” but didn’t have the best performance. As the perceived front runner, he just has to look Presidential and not screw up. This time he was both the winner and had the best performance. His first three answers were fantastic, easily the best of the candidates. I felt that he started slipping a bit when asked about his record on taxes. Sometimes Romney reminds me of a used car salesman, and this inner voice in my head starts saying “I don’t believe what you’re saying”. That happened on that answer. And I think that answer was the tipping point for him. He was considerably less impressive after that, including flailing as usual on defending RomneyCare. And later in the debate he seemed to become the invisible man. Still, that’s a win for him. If he’s invisible it’s because no one is going after him. And if no one is going after him, he’s still going to be the front runner.

Former Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) had his best debate by far, and at times really shone. I’ve said this now many times and it’s still true. When Santorum is good, he’s great. And when he’s not good, he’s terrible. As usual, we saw a little bit of both last night. The good news for Santorum is that for once we saw more of the good side than the bad side. I admire him for standing firm on his pro life credentials, but his no exceptions at all stance is not going to win him many votes. Still, if he’d been like this in the first two debates, the race might be a bit different. Now, though, it seems like too little too late. My big peeve with the Senator is that I believe he’s too thin skinned. And he allowed that to cause him to lose his patience with Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX-14) and Fox News’ Chris Wallace last night.

Now, it gets tricky. Other than those two, I don’t think anyone did a very good job last night. Herman Cain (R-Godfather’s Pizza) was probably the next best, but still stumbled on foreign policy, particularly Afghanistan. Wallace went after him on Cain’s statements on Muslims, and I don’t think Cain helped himself any with his answers. He clearly showed that he’s not Presidential material. I should copy-paste that last sentence. I may use it often from here on out in this post.

I guess I’d have to go with former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA-06) for the next best performance, but he bickered far too much with Chris Wallace, claiming that the debate questions were “gotcha” questions. I think they were questions these candidates are going to be asked many times over the next 15 months, and they better have good answers for them. His bit on calling Congress back to repeal Sarbanes-Oxley, ObamaCare, Frank-Dodd, the Super Committee,  and a few others fell completely flat for me. And he mentioned it twice. The second time it more than fell flat, it annoyed me. Good ideas, but we need to be honest in these debates. Most of those proposals would struggle to exceed 40 votes in the Senate right now. You can forget about 60. I’ve said this before about Newt as well. He’s a great idea man. He’s the guy you want in your company to sit around and come up with new directions for the company. But you don’t want him running it. You need someone else to say “Good idea, Newt, but…no.”

Former Governor Tim Pawlenty (R-MN) probably comes next, but his performance, especially the first hour, was dismal. In fact, he lost my support. I was very impressed with him after the first debate, not so much after the second, and he’s fallen off the map now. He and Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (R-MN-06) went after each other with ferocity and bitterness. It wasn’t pretty on either side. People had differing impressions of who pulled down whom, but both came out of it looking awful. Not saying he couldn’t change my mind again, but right now, I’m in search of a candidate. And I’m not looking towards MN to find one. When he wasn’t bickering with Bachmann he looked ok, but not the guy I remember from the first debate. His best moments last night were like the guy he was in the second debate. Not good.

Next, former Governor Jon Huntsman (R-UT). All it says by having him sixth is that the other two below him were completely terrible. There’s nothing that Huntsman says that endears him to me or makes me want to vote for him. I’m sure he was a decent governor for Utah, but there’s no doubt that he’s a big government Republican, and I don’t think he’s ready for a larger stage. Not Presidential material.

I guess I’d put Ron Paul in seventh, but again, only because he wasn’t quite as bad as Bachmann. His foreign policy ideas are frankly scary. He’s a big L libertarian, and an isolationist. And last night he was even less solid than usual on domestic policy. I think when he expresses his ideas on a national stage it hurts the entire party. He either makes us look foolish, or he hands talking points to the left. Sometimes both. I’d honestly prefer it if he were not at any future debates.

Apparently winning these debates is not a good thing. I thought Pawlenty won the first, and looked bad in the second. I thought Bachmann was the clear winner of the second and looked horrible last night. In fact, I’d go as far to say that it was one of the worst debate performances I’ve ever seen. Her bickering and sniping with Pawlenty was not useful, and really her best moment was when answering an absolutely ridiculous question by Byron York on whether she’d submit to her husband as President. The question obviously caught her off guard (as I think it did to us all), but she kept her cool, responded, made some nice key points about love, marriage, family, and children, and generally made York look like a doofus for even asking it. Bachmann has been polling well, but I believe it’s more because the “anybody but Romney” crowd has jumped on her bandwagon, not because she has much strong support. I think when Governor Rick Perry (R-TX) enters the race, and if former Governor Sarah Palin (R-AK) enters, she disappears.

I’ve said both of the last two times that I thought Palin, assuming she runs, was hurt by not being there. Last night was the opposite. For both her and Perry, it was good to not be there last night. They didn’t get pulled down into the mud, and will get the stage to themselves for a while this weekend.

I think in general the candidates all made two significant mistakes. None of them really went after Romney. I keep hammering on this. He is the perceived front runner. If you don’t go after the front runner, he will remain the front runner. Second, there was almost no mention of President Barack Obama (D-USA). Obama needs to be center stage at all of these debates. In fact, they should add an extra empty podium just for him. He’s the person all of these people are running against. They need to show his faults and make clear distinctions between what he’s done and what they would do.

The bottom line? The only candidate that was there last night that can win the GOP nomination was Mitt Romney. The others are wasting their time and ours. Our GOP nominee will be one of Romney, Perry, or Palin, and you can bet the farm on that.

GOP Debates: Round 2–New Hampshire

Last night, the leading declared contenders for the GOP nomination for President squared off in New Hampshire. If you missed it, you’re not alone. The only people that tune in for debates like this in the middle of June the year before the election are people that are paid to do so, political junkies like me, and people with money to drop.

If you’re interested, you can find my thoughts on the first debate here.

The night had some clear winners and losers, and some people who got stuck in the mud in the middle. Overall, I was impressed. Even the weakest of the candidates had some good moments. And, just to be balanced, I don’t think anyone was pitch perfect through the entire night.

The strongest performance of the night was by Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (R-MN-05). She was solid from beginning to end, only stumbling a little bit on the follow-up question on gay marriage (she’s for a Constitutional amendment, and for states rights—that’s not impossible, but it is confusing). Maybe a couple of her answers seemed a little over-rehearsed, and she dropped to talking points once or twice, but that’s nit picking. I was impressed with her, as I always am when I see her interviewed.

She had the strongest performance, but she wasn’t the “winner”. Last time I thought former Governor Tim Pawlenty (R-MN) had the strongest performance, but Herman Cain (R-GP) might have been the winner, due to making himself known. Similarly, I think former Governor Mitt Romney (R-MA) was the winner last night. As the perceived frontrunner, what he has to do is show up, look Presidential, not screw up, and not get hammered too much by the other candidates. He cleared that bar easily. He had a couple of weaker answers, but  think you’d have to be a conservative policy wonk to really catch that. In short, he showed why he’s the frontrunner.

The biggest losers of the night were CNN, the moderator John King, and former Governor Sarah Palin (R-AK). I thought during the first debate that Palin really needed to be there. Last night that felt even more true. The field is starting to look set now, and those in the field are going to be gaining momentum and attention from those with money and political pull. She’s starting to hurt her chances by not declaring. A lot of this is true for Governor Rick Perry (R-TX) as well, but I think all of the Texas references last night help him a bit. Texas is about the only thing keeping America’s economy afloat at the moment, and that’s hard to hide.

As for CNN and King, neither should be allowed to ever do a Presidential debate again. The format was awful, not giving candidates time to answer detailed policy questions with the necessary details. King was rude and annoying, constantly interrupting with “uh” to get the candidates moving or back on topic, sometimes before they’d finished a single sentence. I could deal with all of that, though, but there were subtleties that were even worse. The entire debate seemed designed around protecting President Barack Obama (D-USA) and Mitt Romney. There were very few questions on topics that harm either of them. What about jobs, inflation, foreign wars, $4 gas, cap and trade, energy subsidies, and entitlement reform? There was one question early on about the Ryan plan, and another directed at Pawlenty regarding his ObamneyCare statement this weekend. I know having 7 people there makes it challenging, but surely it’s possible to better than that. The debate was painful to watch, and not because of the candidates.

Speaking of which, here’s a friendly word of advice to GOP Presidential candidates. I know all about President Ronald Reagan’s (R-USA) 11th Commandment, and I know that we need to make this election a referendum on Obama, but unless you want Romney to be the nominee, you’re going to have to take some shots at him as well. And when the moderator gives you a nice slow pitch right down the middle of the plate, you need to hit that one out of the park. Yes, I’m talking to you, Tim Pawlenty. Why couldn’t you back up your ObamneyCare statement? Surely you had to expect a question about this? Awful. Truly awful.

As much as I was impressed with Pawlenty during the first debate, his performance last night, especially during the first hour, was a huge disappointment. He did seem to gain strength as the night wore on, something he shared with former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA-06), and Herman Cain. I thought all three stumbled early, but picked up in the second hour. Newt fumbled again discussing his position on the Ryan plan. He needs to figure out how to answer this question, or just drop out.

Cain’s biggest problem, though, wasn’t himself, but that for long periods of the night, he was basically ignored by King and the questioners. I think former Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) also suffered from this to a lesser degree. What I saw of Santorum impressed me much more than last time around. He seemed much more relaxed and composed. I just wish I’d seen more of him.

Ok, have I left anyone out? Oh yes. My statement about Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX-14) from last time still applies. He was Ron Paul. Brilliant about some things and frighteningly scary about others. Fortunately for him, since the debate topics shied away from foreign policy to such a degree, he didn’t get as many chances to show just how scary he can be. In fact, on most of the domestic policy questions he made good points and good sense. His one answer on Social Security and Medicare may have been the right one “shut them all down”, but it’s not going to win over many voters, even in the GOP.

Overall, I was impressed with the field. Any of these people would be a great improvement over the current occupant of the White House. I have some more thoughts on the candidates themselves, but that’s a topic for another post.

If you missed the debate or just want to watch it again, here’s the vid, courtesy of The Right Scoop.

The GOP Candidates-The Bad

As promised, now the bad.

(No, I’m not going to do an Ugly, but if you look at this list, I’m sure you can find some ugly)

• Mitt Romney – Wow, where to begin. He’s the left most person in the field. He’s got RomneyCare hanging around his neck, supports ethanol subsidies and believes in anthropogenic global warming (AGW).
• Newt Gingrich – I think he learned too much from President Bill Clinton (D-USA). He’s too much into this whole “national conversation” thing, and seems like he’s always triangulating lately. He also believes in AGW, and to be blunt, his campaign so far has been a disaster. As I have said previously, he’s a 20th century politician. I really don’t feel that he understands the Tea Party and the angst there.
• Tim Pawlenty – Definitely has some green roots and supported cap & trade while governor. He says he’s learned from that, but there are some other things he needs to have learned from as well. He hasn’t always been a small government politician. Right now he appears to be saying the right things, but is he just saying them to get elected, or because that’s what he feels? Call me cynical, but I worry.
• Herman Cain – His outsider status is going to be a problem in the general election. He clearly has issues with foreign policy as well. Also, I fear that the MSM will use his race in a subtle fashion to attack him and the GOP. I can just imagine someone saying, “Look, the GOP is trying to show they have a black man too. But there are so few in the GOP they couldn’t find one with actual political experience to run.” If you don’t think Chris Matthews is capable of saying something like this, you haven’t been paying attention. I really hope I’m wrong on that, but I fear I’m not.
• Michelle Bachman – I don’t believe in legislators as Presidents. I never have, and our current President sure hasn’t changed my mind. Also, she’s a firebrand. I think that works for her in the House, but not sure it’s a winning feature in the White House. Let her run for Governor of MN, learn to be a Chief Executive, and then I’m solidly behind her in 2016 or 2020, depending on 2012 outcome.
• Ron Paul – Well, he’s Ron Paul. He’s an isolationist, and he’s out there on a lot of things.
• Rick Perry – As I said on the good page, I just don’t know that much about him. I do remember in those articles over the last few years that I scanned, that I wasn’t always happy. I can’t name any specifics though. I’m not the best even keeping up with local politics even in my own state, much less someone else’s. Yes, I realize that sounds odd for someone who is so much for Federalism. I’d love to pay more attention to local politics, but our top heavy federal government doesn’t allow me to do so.
• Gary Johnson – His performance in the first debate was absolutely dismal. He didn’t give a single answer that I liked. So, I’m pretty much down on him on every single issue.
• Sarah Palin – As a candidate she has a lot to overcome. Also, while I admire her desire to run an unconventional campaign, I doubt the ability of such a campaign to succeed on a national level. She has an image that has been created by the MSM, and it is the image that most people see in their minds when they think of her. And, fair or unfair, the “quitter” label is going to be stuck with her for the rest of her life. Also, I think her adamant stand on the debt ceiling issue would come back to haunt her as a President. It has all the makings of a “Read my lips” moment.
• Jon Huntsman – I missed him on the Good, so I’ll have to go back and add something. But he’s well liked by the MSM, which is all conservatives should need to know about him. He’s a big government politician and pro choice.

That’s the bad. And, sadly, there’s a lot of it. I can probably support any of these people should they win the nomination, but it will be extremely difficult for me to pull the lever for Romney, Johnson, or Huntsman. I’ve previously said I’ll never do it for Romney, but our current President is slowly making me reconsider that position. I’m pretty worried about the future of our country should President Barack Obama (D-USA) be re-elected, so despite my significant misgivings about Romney, and what he means to the future of the USA and the GOP, I’ll probably have to support him.

The GOP Candidates-The Good

My Twitter timeline is full of statements good and bad about various GOPers these days, and I keep finding myself wanting to retweet with comment. Unfortunately, most of my comments would be 1) negative, and 2) comparative to former Governor Sarah Palin (R-AK). I’m really trying not to be an “all Palin, all the time” sort of person, so I’ve been mostly resistant to tweeting.

However, my fingers are still twitchy, so I’m going to write a couple blog posts about what I like and dislike about the various mainstream candidates and speculative candidates.

All comments are based upon what I know of these people right now, and are my opinion only. Remember, this post is only about the good things. The bad things are coming later.

• Mitt Romney – He’s probably more capable of winning the independent vote than any other candidate. And he understands economics better than just about anyone else in the field
• Newt Gingrich – An absolutely brilliant individual, capable of thinking outside the box, and a genuine font of knowledge when it concerns U.S. history, and the implications of the future. Also understands the need for getting the public on your side, having learned this the hard way from President Bill Clinton (D-USA)
• Tim Pawlenty – Showing some real strength so far in the campaign season, definitely trying to court the Tea Party movement.
• Herman Cain – Smart outsider who understands businesses and what makes them grow. He supports the FairTax and also is not afraid of calling out the President where he’s wrong.
• Michelle Bachmann – Definitely has staked out the Tea Party movement as her core constituency. Taking a principled stand where taxes and the size of government is concerned.
• Ron Paul – I like some of his libertarian views, particularly where he stands on marriage. I’m in total agreement with him. We need to get government out of the marriage business. Yes, I realize that’s not as easy as it sounds, but it’s the right solution. Oh, and I’m with him on the Federal Reserve. That would be the best thing about a Paul presidency, seeing him demanding the Fed turn over their books.
• Rick Perry – To be honest, I don’t know the Texas governor all that well. I remember glancing through several stories over the last few years with his name on them and being mostly pleased with what I saw, but I don’t remember any specifics. Will have to do more research if his candidacy appears more likely.
• Gary Johnson – Give me a minute. I’ll think of something. Oh yeah, I read that he supports the FairTax.
• Sarah Palin – Since her emergence in 2008, she has been on the right side of every issue, and she has an opinion on all of them and has voiced them loudly and clearly to anyone who’s bothered to listen. What I like most about Sarah Palin is that she recognizes the MSM as the enemy and treats them as such, going around them to get her message out, rather than through them. She also has been willing to attack President Barack Obama (D-USA) on his stances much more than any other political figure.
• Jon Huntsman – He has some nice foreign policy credentials as Ambassador to China, and he’s a strong proponent of real tax reform, something that’s a big issue to me personally, in case you haven’t noticed.

There are other candidates and speculated candidates listed here, but I honestly don’t believe Congressman Paul Ryan (R-WI-01) or Governor Chris Christie (R-NJ) are running. As for the others, I think only John Bolton has a chance of making any noise at all, and even his noisemaking potential appears minimal.

UPDATED: Added the bit about Ron Paul and the Fed.

UPDATE 2: Forgot Jon Huntsman. Added.

New Vids from Cain & Pawlenty

Cain:

 

Nice to see him solidly back on the FairTax bandwagon. His support had seemed a little shaky lately.

Pawlenty:

 

Pawlenty’s vid is a little weak, but overall I’m still impressed with his campaign—so far. He’s not a perfect candidate, by any means, and he might still be left of me, but at least he’s in the same ballpark, and he understands the problems America is facing. I want to see more attacking from him and less touchy-feely stuff like this video though.

The Obligatory ‘Cain Is In’ Post

Yes, yes, I know. Three days old on this one. Like I said, I’ve been busy.

Herman Cain (R-Godfather’s Pizza) officially announced his candidacy for the Presidency on Sunday. I’ve been a fan of Can for years. He occasionally subs for Neal Boortz on Boortz’s talk show. He’s a very smart man, and a true conservative. And he’s for the FairTax. I think. He’s been a little squishy on that lately.

Anyway, here’s the vid:

 

BTW, here’s the vid of how Cain originally gained national fame. He was taking on then President Bill Clinton regarding HilaryCare in 1994:

 

Cain is a good man. And he’s been getting lots of grass roots attention since the first debate, as well. Many people think he won. He didn’t. His foreign policy answers were not just bad, but awful. He has to improve there, substantially. And, despite the love that the grass roots has for “outsiders”, I’m not convinced that the general public is ready to vote for a man for President who has never won an election of any kind before.

Finally, I think he’s going to face ridicule from the MSM on Palin-like levels. Liberals hate it when women and blacks speak out against Democratic socialism. Those who do must be destroyed. And they will do their best to do so.

Perhaps the months ahead will change my mind, but for now I just don’t see him as a serious contender. He has momentum right now, though. We’ll see what he can do with it.

And Round One Goes To…

Former Governor Tim Pawlenty (R-MN) was the clear winner in last night’s GOP debate. He was energetic, focused, and on message. He handled the question about his former support of cap and trade very well. “We did the research and discovered it was a bad idea. I was wrong.” As long as the big names stay out (Huckabee, Gingrich, Daniels, Romney, Palin), he has to be considered the frontrunner, and may still be even after some of them enter.

Herman Cain (R), and former Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) also distanced themselves from the rest, but each had some problems as well. Cain is clearly uncomfortable talking about foreign policy, and while a FairTax supporter, his defense of it was very weak. Santorum seemed defensive and awkward at times and used the word ‘I’ far too often. Still, both of them were on message more than they were off.

Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX-14) was, well, Ron Paul. He speaks the libertarian game very well. But too many mainstream conservatives regard him as a wacko for him to be considered a serious threat. Still, any support he gets just shows the GOP that they need to consider the ideas of the libertarians. Every time he opens his mouth though,  I get a knot in my stomach from wondering what he’s going to say.

And that brings us to the last of our intrepid debaters, former Governor Gary Johnson (R-NM). How can I put this? Well, he stunk. I honestly hope I don’t have to sit through another debate with him as a participant. He was petulant and stumbled through his answers. His answer on how he’d respond to pro-life critics (he’s pro-choice) was terrible. His drug answers weren’t much better. And he just seemed very uncomfortable up on stage. In fact, his only good moment of the night was during his closing statement. It was the only time he looked like he was having fun, and he got in a plug for his website.

Focus groups thought that Cain won the debate and Santorum came in second. I’d say that Cain gained the most last night, but I don’t think he won. Still, he was good enough that people are going to start paying attention to him, which is what he needs. Santorum’s high praise was due almost entirely to his attack on ObamaCare which was very well done.

In all, I think that the heavyweights that skipped this one made a mistake. It was a very good debate, and clearly it’s going to give momentum to Pawlenty, Cain, and Santorum heading into the summer.

Opinions on debates tend to be highly subjective, and depend, more often than not, on your presupposed opinions before the debate even started. Therefore, I present the following videos of the debate in its entirety, so that you may watch and judge for yourself.

GOP Nomination Process Begins Today

It begins. The circus we call the nomination process.

Today we will have the first of countless GOP debates between the candidates for the 2012 Republican nomination for President. Who’s going to be there?

Former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, Texas Rep. Ron Paul, businessman Herman Cain and former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson will face off in Greenville, S.C., in the Fox News-sponsored debate that begins at 9 p.m.

All names that are on everyone’s short list, I’m sure.

Many people have opined on why most of the major names are not here (Romney, Gingrich), and also on why so many expected candidates (Palin, Daniels) have not even thrown their names in the ring yet. I have no opinion on why, but I do think that it’s about time to get this party started. I think a candidate who has not made an official declaration by mid-summer will likely be in trouble. Time will tell.

Anyway, since this is the start, it’s worth taking a look at something I wrote over 2 years ago:

At this point, a 2-term Presidency for Mr. Barack Obama (D-USA) seems a near certainty.

[…]

What’s the #1 question in voter’s minds when they go to the polls to re-elect an incumbent or vote in a new President?

“Am I better or worse off now than I was 4 years ago?”

It’s hard to see how most people will answer that as “worse”. I certainly hope that most people won’t. That would mean that we really are in a “depression” and not a “recession”. Because otherwise, because of or in spite of Mr. Obama, the economy should have recovered to some degree by then.

Well, we seem to have missed the “depression” many were worried about, but I’m not sure too many people will say that they’re better off then they were in 2008 at this point. We are still at nearly 9% unemployment, and the only reason it’s even that low is because so many people have given up looking for work. Gas prices are through the roof. Inflation is digging deeper into people’s pockets, people that haven’t gotten any raises in three years. The housing market is still in free fall. And people are again talking “recession”. Add all that up, and it’s ugly.

Still, the election is 18 months away from tomorrow. Quite a bit of recovery could occur between now and then. It would be foolish to expect it, based on the recovery we’ve seen so far. But, you never know.

So, tonight the five men listed above will bring up some of these facts, and tell us how they’re going to fix them, and how stupid the other four men are. Be sure to tune in. 9 pm EDT on FNC.