Watching the latest (I’ve lost count of the number) Republican candidates’ debate in Detroit made me wish we could have a composite candidate with the best from all of them, because each has something valuable to contribute. There were no winners or losers, because they mostly did not attack each other, though Gov. Rick Perry did not help himself when he apparently suffered a brain cramp and couldn’t remember the third federal agency he would cut after Education and Commerce. He remembered later that it is Energy, but the damage had been done.
Gov. Mitt Romney had a new look. He was far more animated than usual and he had strands of hair hanging down like developing bangs. It may be as close as he gets to being laid back, or casual.
Newt Gingrich has compared himself to a tortoise and Romney to a hare. Indeed, Newt’s popularity numbers continue to rise in proportion to his serious and detailed answers to sometimes difficult questions. Again, he got in one slam at the media, which always scores well with Republican voters (the crowd booed when the subject of sexual-harassment charges was brought up to Herman Cain). Romney wisely decided not to answer when he was asked if he’d hire someone like Cain with so many accusations against him.
Gingrich got off the best line of the night when he faulted the media for not asking the Occupy Wall Street demonstrators if they have a clue how the new economy works. His campaign got a boost from Dorothy Rabinowitz in a Wall Street Journal column Tuesday titled “Why Gingrich Could Win.” Gingrich wants to challenge President Obama to a series of Lincoln-Douglas–style debates that would last for three hours and get into great detail about everything that matters. I have no doubt Gingrich would win such a debate.
Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum, Ron Paul, and Jon Huntsman gave good answers, but they are back in the pack and unless something dramatic happens that would make voters take another look at them, they probably will not move up. Some have faulted the number of these debates, but especially given that this is the first time in more than 40 years there hasn’t been a “next in line” for Republicans, these appearances help voters separate the good from the bad and determine which candidate is most electable.
— Cal Thomas is a syndicated and USA Today columnist and Fox News contributor.
"given that this is the first time in more than 40 years there hasn’t been a “next in line” for Republicans"
I think most of your readers would argue with you about this.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYeah. What gullyborg said.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI see gullyborg beat me to it. Cal, his name is Mitt Romney and he's the reason why there are so many frustrated conservatives out there.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhatever Gingrich is, Romney is clearly a hare.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI apologize. I mean to say: Whatever Gingrich is, Romney is clearly a tortoise.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe Newtster keeps inching up in the polls. He's clearly both the adult on the stage and the not-Romney candidate.
Once the Cain harassment nonsense runs it course, I expect a MSM witch hunt on Gingrich. Any baggage Newt's carrying goes back to last century (as did Cain's). The first time voter would have been born the year Newt was Speaker. The 1st voter of '08 would have been 4. Will anything that Politico, HuffPo, Kos, NYT and WaPo dig up on Newt carry any weight with independents or the newly minted voter?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCal, you used the now curse word, "electable." I take that to mean "take this unprincipled, 'stick your finger in the air and check the wind today,' slick talker who will continue to allow government to screw us, but just a little slower. "Electable" assumes we cannot communicate well enough the conservative values and program that we need in a leader to pull America from the disaster that is in front of us. Or do we think we can make banners and flags with the word "electable" and wave them about the country as our core principle? What are the true principles of the Republican party? Are we so lazy, thoughtless or lacking in ideas that we cannot teach ourselves and teach people like me to communicate effectively to union people, blacks, environmentalists and other knee-jerk democrats that the policies they follow are destructive to their own causes, and in the process impress the undecided? Can we not change the conversation to emphasize "how we get there" is the real point for we all want to take care of the poor, the environment, the worker? Let us nominate the right man, then do what it takes to get him elected.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse