The Republicans’ presidential debate Thursday night sponsored by Fox News and Google gave primary voters and caucus-goers at least one good reason to reject every candidate on the stage. The interesting question now is whether someone else will enter the race — at just about the same point in the election cycle in which Bill Clinton entered the Democratic race in 1991.
The spotlight was hottest on Rick Perry, the frontrunner in national polls since he announced his candidacy in Charleston, S.C., on Aug. 13, the same day that Michele Bachmann won the straw poll in Ames, Iowa.
Advertisement
Perry’s problem was not just that he punted on the tough question of how to respond to a terrorist takeover of nuclear-armed Pakistan. Even the smooth-talking Mitt Romney might have had trouble with that nightmare scenario. And Perry was right to cite our informal alliance with India as a source of leverage.
The problem was that Perry couldn’t respond cogently to utterly predictable questions and was unable to articulate his pre-scripted criticisms of Romney. A case can certainly be made that Romney has flip-flopped on issues. But Perry failed to make it.
Perry defended his order requiring HPV vaccinations by citing his talks with a woman with cervical cancer — but they took place only after his order. He failed to fend off attacks on his criticisms of Social Security in his book Fed Up!, saying he was only endorsing the longtime exemption from the program for state and local public employees.
He failed to explain why Texas, with its large legal- and illegal-immigrant and young populations, has a high percentage of people without health insurance.
He was eloquent in defending Texas’s in-state college tuition for children of illegal aliens, but his stand is hugely unpopular with Republicans outside Texas. And he failed to point out that it helped him win a respectable 38 percent from Latino voters in the 2010 election.
Mitt Romney clearly benefited from his greater experience over the years and his superior preparation in recent weeks. But he also benefited from the fact that no one challenged him convincingly on claims that he is unlikely to be able to sustain.
He sloughed off Perry’s accurate charge that he supported the Obama administration’s Race to the Top education program — a defensible position, but not a popular one for Republicans.
He repeated now what has been his standard defense of his Massachusetts health-care program. But someday someone is going to nail him on his insistence that its individual mandate to buy insurance covers only 8 percent of the population. It actually applies to everyone.
He avoided Perry’s claim that he deleted defenses of the program from the paperback edition of his book. He won’t be able to deftly dodge that forever.
If he overtakes Perry in the polls — a likely possibility after the Texan’s stumbling performance — he will likely become the piñata for the rest of the field, a role he figured to play before Perry entered the race.
None of the other seven candidates on the stage made a convincing case for advancing to the top tier. The closest was Rick Santorum, who was eloquent and knowledgeable on foreign policy. But his answer on gays in the military was cringe-inducing for people on all sides of the issue.
Michele Bachmann refused to back down from her statement relaying the claim of a woman who approached her saying that the HPV vaccine caused retardation in her child. Bachmann has made headway by championing the instincts of ordinary hardworking citizens over the supposed wisdom of experts. But on vaccinations the experts are right.
Pundits are fixated on designating a frontrunner, but the polls in this race — witness Romney’s rise and fall and Perry’s rise — have all the solidity of cotton candy. Bachmann’s numbers peaked in July, Herman Cain’s in June, Ron Paul’s and Newt Gingrich’s in May — and not at high levels. Santorum’s haven’t peaked at all.
Could another candidate give a better performance than Perry and deliver more sustainable responses than Romney? To judge from their performances in various public and private venues, the answer is yes for Mitch Daniels, Paul Ryan, and Chris Christie.
Each has taken himself out of the race. Each still has time to get in. Most voters are ready to reject Barack Obama. But not necessarily for one of those on the stage Thursday night.
Actually, Ron Paul's numbers are still going up. The most recent polls are the polls he didn't do as well in, but he went up from where he was before in them. He has not yet peaked.
I have to disagree. The GOP has their candidate, and it is Romney.
It's we conservatives who are searching for the person to run against him, and ultimately against Obama.
Im a bit confused as to why Bachmann is so low in the mix. Is she now positioned as our "fallback candidate" just in case a new Con doesn't enter the race?
If Conservatives are going to flee Perry, may I suggest we rally 'round someONE fairly quickly. Leaving Bachmann and Cain twisting in the breeze only hurts them and strengthens Romney's position.
The mainstream media won’t bring Cain to the front without being forced to (doesn’t fit the “Racist Tea Party” narrative) and he won’t poll well until then. Perry, Romney, Bachman, and Palin will continue to receive coverage from here on out so they will go on rising and falling in the polls depending on their performances. As long as Conservative commentators (NRO, Limbaugh, Hannity, etc) keep saying that Cain doesn’t have a chance or fixate on assumed frontrunners in columns and coverage he won’t get the traction he deserves in the polls. Mr. Cain will have to continue out-flanking the mainstream and conservative media and take his message directly to the primary voters so he can create his own “buzz”. He’s the only conservative candidate with executive experience who can articulate his positions in multiple settings. The other candidates either can’t bring the message, don’t have the executive experience, or aren’t conservative.
Mitt Romney is the right candidate for this time. He's a turn-around artist and a job creator, at a time when we need to turn this country around and create jobs. He's smart, articulate, well-informed, and hard-working. He can not only beat Obama in the general election, but he has the skills to govern the country successfully. We have our guy, and I think he's going to make a great President.
Just to be clear, I meant that the GOP "proper" or leadership wants Romney as their candidate. It is Cons, such as myself, who are looking for a better option. We already put forth an Obama-lite McCaine in 2008, and found no one but a Republican would support the knock-off when they could have the real deal.
2012 is similar, but with a twist. Obama has accelerated our financial crisis, and offering "Obama-lite" Romney does nothing to resolve our problems, yet allows the Libs to escape responsibility for our mess. The GOP wants to keep spending, just at a slower rate of borrowing.
No thank you! We Tea Partiers need to come up with an alternative FAST. Given the choice between Obama and Romney - its a coin toss, but I guess I'd hedge towards Obama. At least that way our demise will be quick and there will be no doubt as to what ideology to rely upon should we be fortunate enough to have the opportunity to rebuild from the ashes!
My candidate is not yet in the race, but if I were a news analyst, I would not be discussing the debates this way.
I would say that at least five or six of the candidates on that stage show that they love this country, have understanding of what Obama is doing wrong and would do the right things economically to get us on the way to fixing the severe damage he's done. I would say whatever each one's flaws are as debaters, they would be a vast improvement on this disastrous administration and would beat Obama in a one on one debate.
I am flummoxed by how terribly conservative analysts discuss these candidates. They would probably have found fault with Reagan as a debater using this style of analysis. I have stopped watching all news because I am so disgusted with the way even Fox has made a hash of the way they go over the debates.
I watch the debates and figure it out for myself.
And I figured it out that five of those people were okay by me and that Perry did not do badly, but Romney hurt himself.
Perry has a lot going for him. He would destroy Obama in a debate. It is debating fellow fighters for the nomination that is hard.
When liberals say to me, okay, so maybe Obama isn't doing such a good job and maybe I'm sorry I voted for him, but who on the other side is any better, where are they getting their impressions? From Rachel Maddow, okay, that's expected, but why should it also be from people on our side?
If I assert that except for him, him and him, any one of the others would be a vast improvement and explain why, these liberals are taken aback because I am so positive in my assertions and factual in my explanation. They may not vote for our side, but a few of them might and that would be enough.
It's time for conservatives to stop picking winners and losers for us and just report the facts and allow viewers, voters, to figure out for themselves who is the one.
I am getting sick of our side giving the left food for their commercials.
"Could another candidate give a better performance than Perry and deliver more sustainable responses than Romney? To judge from their performances in various public and private venues, the answer is yes for Mitch Daniels, Paul Ryan, and Chris Christie."
The answer is yes for Paul Ryan and no for Mitch Daniels and Chris Christie. Neither Daniels or Christie have been proven by the national press but Ryan has and he isn't running. Daniels could have been a candidate but he and his family made a decision that precludes him from having much credibility now as a late entrant. Christie will have very little appeal to the social conservatives in the Republican primary regardless of how well he may be able to sustain responses to weak positions, which is a very subjective guess at this point.
Given Romney's current success fending off challenges, and improving his responses to past positions, Barone's opinion underestimates Romney's sustainability.
Gingrich is by far the smartest on the stage and he's nailed every question asked of him. He also has the most political experience of any of the candidates. He may be too eager to espouse some grandiose schemes, but his instincts are conservative. He's mature enough now to be a fine president.
I am a great fan of NRO and its articles, but to tell the truth it boggles my mind when I read some of the responses. I joined the Tea Party several years ago, because I am sick of the way this country is headed. However, I do not think that one man or woman can change our path over night. I believe that all of the current candidates are conservatives and I am getting tired of the "RINO" remarks from the right. McCain was never a conservative, he has been a Progressive. So please stop calling him a RINO. Most voters in this country want someone who speaks plain and has the "fire inside" for this country. I like Romney, I like Cain, and I like Rick Santorum, but we need to have a candidate that can take on Obama and win. That means independents and moderate Dems. Of the 3 above a ROmney-Cain ticket would be a winner. I get giddy when I think of a Cain-Biden debate. The election is still months away and things could and probably will change, but the anti-Obama voters on this site should really get their act together and pray that one of these candidates doesn't put their own ego above the country's future by running as an independent.
I agree that ANY Republican will be a vast improvement over Obama - even weird Uncle Ron - however, who can seriously doubt that Herman Cain is Obama's and the left's worst nightmare?
I've said before and I'll say again Mr. Cain has the "it" factor, an instant appeal that jumps out at you. His calls to action stem more from an authentic belief system than anyone on the stage other than Mr. Santorum - however he lacks Mr. Santorum's prickly demeanor. By contrast Mr. Cain comes across more as a comforting sage. This intangible cannot be underestimated. The rest of the Republican field appears bland or inauthentic.
The idea of Herman Cain in a one-on-one debate with Obama is so appealing - the young know-nothing extremist ideologue stripped of his only trump card - the race card - against an extremely intelligent, successful, accomplished leader is too good to pass up.
Think also of the historic opportunity Mr. Cain represents to return the African-American vote back to the Republican Party after a hiatus of over 100 years.
"Perry has a lot going for him. He would destroy Obama in a debate."
On what are you basing that opinion? Had I not seen the last two debates, I might agree. If he can't handle Romney, he can't handle Obama.
"He may be too eager to espouse some grandiose schemes, but his instincts are conservative."
I think a closer examination of Gingrich is in order. He's a poll-chaser. He will move to the center of public opinion and try to craft a strategy to meet it. A few years ago, he revealed his plan to meet a consensus. It consisted of finding what opinions were popular and pursuing those goals. That's not principle. It may be ocmpromise, but it smacked of pandering.
I think Santorum, Cain, Bachmann have to go after Romney, not Perry. They have to show that they, not Perry, is the real alternative to Romney.
Bachmann has got to back off that vaccine nonsense. Just deflect the question from now on and pivot to a related issue, such as healthcare.
Cain - boy I wish he did a stint as a governor. Even still, he's back in the lead for my vote (non Republican, conservative/liberatarian type). He has a number of rough edges, but he's consistant and relates more easily to the audience. He has conversations with the audience. He doesn't talk to them.
Santorum is also back in the running. Again, rough edges, but he articulates conservative principles well and has staked unpopular positions without budging.
I wish Huntsman would just leave. He has no shot and can't continue to take up airtime. Of course, he's the media darling, so they'll try to keep his campaign on life support for as long as they can.
You're absolutely right: the conservatives must go after Romney and pound away at him. It's conservatives against Romney, and the prize goes to the one conservative that emerges to vanquish Romney and capture the nomination. That's the goal that these candidates need to realize.
I thought Cain seemed the most comfortable and authentic in the last debate. Perry fumbled his rehearsed lines. Romney often looks good while lying through his teeth. Bachmann lost focus with the vaccine tangent. I thought Santorum was weak and indecisive on most questions. And I wonder if Rush will point out today that someone stole his doggy joke.
We know the issue: not-Obama, so style points do matter. The point is not to be the second coming of Ronald Reagan but to appear to be a viable alternative to Obama. Let’s put this into perspective: None of these candidates has been attending a Marxist-based, anti-Semitic church for the past 19 years. None launched their political careers out of the home of a domestic terrorist. None worked for America-corrupting organizations such as ACORN. Compared to this, what matters some of their flaws?
Brad Nelson writes: "Santorum was weak and indecisive on most questions."
I need to ask what debate he was watching. Santorum's problem is, if anything, that he is too strong and passionate in his beliefs. He's the one taking on the other candidates when they stray too far from conservative territory.
Cain's sense of humor comes through well, and if only he'd smarten-up on foreign and military affairs he'd be fine. But Santorum already knows this sort of thing.
I'd vote for Cain vs. Obama, of course. But then, I'd vote for Biden vs. Obama.
Now I feel better.
And if by some miracle she becomes our candidate, I hope NR and Fox will support her and stop tearing her down.
Let the msm do that.
