I realize that it's always a problem to get politicians (especially those running for President) to not turn answers to questions into infomercials, but it seems to me that CNN and John King went overboard in trying to limit responses from the candidates. Every response for every segment of the debate was supposed to be limited to 30 seconds, (And King did a really good job of jumping on the respondents to prevent them from exceeding this) and it's hardly fair to criticize people for not being "substantive" when you give them so little time to respond. And a format like this is doubly unhelpful at this stage in the campaign when part of what the public service these debates should be performing is to provide voters with a chance to get an introduction to the candidates, what they are like, who they are, and how they handle themselves under pressure. That process is certainly not well served with these kind of response limitations.
The ostensible reason for why CNN did this was to provide time for more questions from the participants at the "Town Hall" meetings the network had set up around the state. (I have to say that personally, I'm not a big fan of these "average people ask the questions" formats. The questions tend to be either too softball, too general, or just plain stupid...I think a format where you have a small group of journalists asking questions, and follow-up questions is far more informative and illuminating; but I digress) But if more audience participation was there goal, they simply could have had King ask fewer questions.
That having been said, here my winners, losers, and who cares:
The Big Winner: Mitt Romney
Romney came across far better than the stiff, snappish, and defensive way he appeared in these debates four years ago. He exuded the easy going, comfortable persona of the confident front runner, and even took numerous opportunities to say nice things about his opponents. He declined every chance to criticize the others on the stage and instead stayed focused on the incumbent, which is exactly what a front runner is supposed to do.
A new NBC/WSJ poll has Romney starting to pull away from the pack. He leads with 30%, Palin comes in a poor second with 14%...If you take Palin out, His lead jumps to 43% with Bachmann running a distant second at 11% . However, while this is good news for Romney he still remains theoretically vulnerable since 74% of the respondents also say they could change their mind.
The Little Winner: Michelle Bachmann
If you knew nothing about Bachmann prior to this debate, you might easily think, "gee this is somebody I ought to really take a look at" ...no gaffs, no over the top rhetoric; she came across as poised, serious minded, and even gracious.
She also declined to take shots at Romney; which makes me think that she may be the one who's "running for Vice-President"...(Though if Romney is the nominee, I have to think freshman Florida Senator Marco Rubio would have the inside track....Young, charismatic, Hispanic, from a key state, and perceived as more conservative than Romney, he bring s a huge amount of pluses to table if Romney head the ticket)
Bachmann has no chance to actually win the nomination, but she undoubtedly helped herself Monday night with the "movement" wing of the GOP electorate, and could turn in strong performances in Iowa and possibly South Carolina. Bachmann has often been referred to as "Palin light"; but the reality is that it's probably the other way around. Bachmann is more intelligent that Palin, more articulate, better educated, and far more disciplined. She also has some top tier political advisers, and she actually takes their advice.
The Big Loser: Tim Pawlenty
Pawlenty needed a homerun, and instead he went down without even swinging. More than any of the other candidates, he really needed to show some pulse, and take Romney on, if he was going to emerge as the serious alternative to Romney. He did neither of these things. In fact he not only did neither of these things, he did neither of these things spectacularly. Not only did he decline to take any shots at Romney, he even back peddled so hard on his earlier criticism of Romney on health care, that he seemed to be saying that his use of the phrase "Obamney Care" on Face The Nation a day earlier had been a gaffe. He came across so bland that he made former British Labour Party leader Gordon Brown look like firebrand by comparison.
While it's early in the cycle for voters, this debate was extremely important for Pawlenty because there's a lot of Republican money folks sitting on the sidelines looking for a candidate to back. It's impossible to imagine that his performance inspired a lot of these folks to reach for their check books. He blew it big time.
His poor performance, (coupled with Gingrich's staff meltdown last week) probably makes it all the more likely that Texas Governor Rick Perry will enter the race. Perry is a dynamic speaker and if he got in, with the softness of Romney's support, he could probably make a race of it. He could certainly raise the money to compete effectively.
And if he were to be nominated, he'd have a very potent case to make for himself in the general election, given the current economic environment. Over the past 10 years that he has been in office, Texas has added a net 730,000 private sector jobs. No other state has added even 100,000, Over 250,000 of those jobs have been added in the past year.
http://www.bizjournals.com/bizjournals/ ... years.html
The claim is made by his detractors that he achieved this by wooing businesses away from other states. Of course if the Obama campaign were to make that charge, Perry would have a great comeback line available to him: "Yes, and if I'm elected President, I'll create jobs by bringing them back here from other countries!"
That, (accurate or not) would probably get him standing ovations, given the current national mood. Barring something really unforeseen, jobs creation is likely to be the 800 pound gorilla issue in 2012, and it's an issue where Obama is extremely vulnerable.
The Little Loser: Herman Cain
It's tough to make yourself look really bad in only 30 seconds , but Herman managed to do it. He outlined a truly bizzare position when asked about hiring Muslims for his administration, (He won't put Muslims who "want to kill us" in his cabinet....well, thanks Herman, that's certainly a relief...hopefully if you're elected, you won't appoint any Christians, Jews or atheists who "want to kill us" to your cabinet either...as a matter of fact, it seems to me that not "wanting to kill us" should probably be at the top of any President's list of requirements for their cabinet appointees) and he badly flubbed several other things as well. His performance will probably help raise Bachmann's appeal with social conservatives.
The Who Cares:
Newt Gingrich: Newt didn't do that badly but his whole campaign has collapsed, he can't raise money, and he has an approach to campaigning that makes Fred Thompson look like a workaholic....total toast.
Ron Paul: Once again wowed his solid six percent support with his eccentricities. So what else is new?
Rick Santorum: Seriously, who cares?
So there you have it..
As always, fair, balanced, and unafraid.....
