This time, the candidates had to face…MSNBC. So of course, quite a few questions would sound hideously biased. Still, the field held firm, and survived with few scars. So without further ado….
Rick Perry: Rick (pictured) has become the new front-runner, chipping off support from both Mitt and Michele. Here, he took on challenges to his economic success as Texas’s governor—and proved firm on his stances, sticking to his guns (as it were) and defending his words and actions. His solemn words on the death penalty were particularly compelling. Overall, Rick held his own—and proved his mettle.
Mitt Romney: With Perry’s entry, Mitt has had to show fighting spirit for the first time since his own initial entry—and this debate, he delivered with energy and humor. He defended his record, both in business and government, quite well. His clashes with Perry were civil, yet firm (and often resembled playful banter), and both raised good points on solutions to the problems at hand. Such is as a debate should be.
Michele Bachmann: As my colleague Ronald Rowe noted last week, Michele’s been ungraciously handed the burden of having to work her way out of the newcomer’s shadow: Perry’s grand entrance snatched up much of her former support. In the debate, this seemed to take its toll: though still firm and unapologetic, she wasn’t nearly as animated as before.
Herman Cain: Previously, I noted Herman’s seemingly lost his former glory—with little chance of recovering. Here, he showed his former energy and drive in spades. He was big on ideas, whenever he spoke—particularly with his “9-9-9” tax reform plan. Is the Herminator back? Only time will tell.
Rick Santorum: While Rick has little chance of winning the nomination, his presence has proven altogether necessary—as he’s the candidate most ready to take Ron Paul to task on foreign policy. His main problem from last time—his short fuse—looks taken care of. He channeled his passion into a more positive image, this time: handling the issues quite well.
Jon Huntsman: Jon has more or less taken care of his previous lack of specificity. He started out here all right, but lacked energy and fire…and eventually developed a “patronizing” air towards the others—particularly when invoking evolution and climate issues.
Newt Gingrich: Last time, Newt’s cantankerous remarks towards moderator Chris Wallace severely hurt his overall performance. This time, his shots at the media were more refined, more “called-for”, more generalized. His strong point here was on immigration reform. Still, I don’t see him trumping Perry or Mitt, any time soon.
Ron Paul: Last time, Ron frankly disgraced himself with naïvely accommodationist comments on Iran’s nuclear program. Here, he appeared far saner: focusing on free market principles, defending ideals of limited government quite well. Still, his odd promise of “silver-dime-a-gallon” gas—along with his critical attitude towards Reagan (apparently forgetting the Gipper had had to work with a Democratic Congress)—only serve to continue questions of his competence.
And there you have it. Next debate will be on Monday, 9/12. Until next time….
(National Guard photo)
Keep it comming