Thursday's night debate was rather interesting. The people I was most impressed with this evening were Newt and Michelle Bachmann. I've always liked Rick Santorum and would vote for him if he stood a chance, but this isn't his year; his balanced Catholic views on things are a hard sell in a year that wants rhetorical venom and a deep kowtow to the free market.
Tim Pawlenty was on my short list coming into tonight, but he turned Minnesota Nasty on Bachmann. No, she hasn't had a lot of bills with her name on it, but how many people are crying for President Boehner or McConnell? He seemed desperate to knock Bachmann down a peg and become the favorite child candidate in Iowa, but he seemed very petty, even with his funny dig on Mitt's property size.
Herman Cain was another early favorite of mine, but he seems two notches too simplistic at times. Energy independence as a tool against a Iranian nuke? Thanks for playing, but by the time the oil production Cain spurs gets online and starts to budge oil prices down a bit, a barge could have an Iranian nuke in Savannah harbor.
Speaking of which, don't get me started on Ron Paul, who wants to blame things there on installing the Shah a half-century ago (he has a quarter of a point, but we're at least two decades clear of the He's Our SOB era); the Iranians don't need an ICBM or a global-reach bomber to do us dirt if they have a nuke in a freight container and a few weeks lead time. Also, his Fed bashing is of dubious economic accuracy; Newt verges on that at times as well.
Newt was both good and geeky. He was right to call Chris Wallace on the carpet, for the question wasn't on Newt's record but his campaign staff issues. However, his obsession with getting rid of Dodd-Frank and Sarbanes-Oxley likely flew over the head of 85% of the audience (I'm the old finance prof and I don't even have a full handle on the problems of Dodd-Frank other than it's seemingly too bureaucratic by half) and I don't trust government appointees with doing Six Sigma without screwing things up worse with regulatory navel-gazing. I think he gets himself back in the conversation here, but he'll need to follow this up with the same panache and a little more user-friendly content.
Mitt was Mitt. If you liked him before, he did nothing to change your mind. If you didn't trust him before, he didn't win you over. He still has to come up with a better response to Romneycare than he did last night.
I was actually impressed with Jon Huntsman. Not that I agree with him on the issues, but he presented himself as a thoughtful, moderate guy. That package is a non-starter in the modern GOP, but it's one that could do quite a bit of damage as a third-party candidate. A Huntsman-Bachmann-Obama race would see all three in the 30% range. Please, don't give him any ideas of being a modern-day John Anderson.
As much as I'm surprising myself by saying so, I'd lean towards Bachmann after tonight. She handled the question of wifely submission with grace, was able to parry T-Paw's nastygrams with a limited amount of bile (still a bit more than optimal, but there was some restraint) and looked like a plausible president. She's a bit more strident than I'd like and needs to work on being a little more of a consensus builder than a belligerent, but there is a good combination of smarts and good policy there in a package that can reach out to the average voter.
Rick Parry (as Colbert likes to spell it) and Sarah Palin are still out there as possible candidates; Perry is due in tomorrow afternoon and Palin is still a wildcard. I'm open to Perry even though I have a oddly bad feeling about him, and Palin might be a better choice than the rest of the field; she shoots from the lip a bit too much, but I trust her instincts more than most of the folks on the podium tonight.
Here's a good ticket: Perry-Santorum.
Comments