The GOP debates for the 2012 nomination might be the most memorable run of political theater that the general American public has ever seen, up close and personal. The cast of characters and their performances are discussed below:
Gingrich: Professorial, unafraid of the moderators, sliiiightly bombastic with his facts, but the strongest of the bunch. He also leads the pack in audience applause without pandering to said audiences.
Romney: The word flawless has been bandied about for Mitt's debate performances, but flawless is no longer a compliment. Now that Gingrich's lead has cemented, flawless means that Romney isn't screwing up, but he isn't regaining any critical ground. His attacks on Gingrich are like playing tennis against a brick wall; Romney simply can't penetrate Newt's breadth of knowledge and authoritative way with words. A key moment was Romney saying that Gingrich was too reckless when he called the Palestinians "an invented people". Romney was probably right, but Gingrich came back by invoking Reagan and his evil empire Russia remark, and saying that "he is not afraid to tell the truth". Point Gingrich. And finally, it's ridiculous that Mitt still lets Rick Perry get under his skin.
Santorum: Always holds his own, never loses an argument, but much like Ron Paul, he has a ceiling. Santorum's views represent too narrow a slice of American citizenry, thus preventing his solid debate performances from crystallizing into something material.
Huntsman: Considered by many to be the best true candidate, Huntsman never evokes much enthusiasm with his debate performances. Maybe it's because he looks like a wimp who went to summer science camp at the urging of his billionaire father? His debate performances simply don't resonate with average Joe citizens. It's a shame because he is the only conservative to favor bringing home the troops, which is what 68% of Americans favor. Would it kill the GOP to elect an electable candidate?
Perry: Ever since his first huge debate gaffe (struggling to put together a coherent sentence on Pakistan), Perry has yet to and will not ever recover. His campaign is toxic and has zero chance at revival. Why? Because at each debate, he simply comes off as a stuttering fool. He does make a fair point when he says that the President is Commander in Chief and not Debater in Chief, but it doesn't stop him from looking like the bumbling second coming of George Bush on the TV. He did score a nice attack when he said "If you cheat on your wife, you'll cheat on your business partner." However, that line would have been more effective if it came from Romney or Paul.
Bachmann: There have been murmurs of Bachmann stealthily stirring up something of a second coming of sorts in Iowa. As Romney and Paul run anti-Gingrich ads in Iowa, ironically enough, Bachmann gains the most, because Gingrich dropouts will not go to Romney or Paul, but rather to Bachmann, since she is the true evangelical and more importantly, went head to head with Gingrich in the last two debates. Unfortunately, she contains tinges of the toxicity that the Perry and Santorum campaigns have; too conservative, too radical, and sometimes too unintelligent.
Paul: The most intriguing candidate. No one ever defeats him in an argument during live debates, despite his suit which never fits him (CAN SOMEONE GET THIS MAN A TAILOR??) Paul's greatest debate moment may have come in the recent ABC event from Saturday night, when he was asked by the sneaky George Stephonopolous about his recent anti-Gingrich ads. Paul claimed that Gingirch was receiving tax payer money from Fannie Mae. Gingirch didn't like that much. Paul's arguments to bring every soldier home and cut excessive spending always resonates with voters, and as the Iowa caucus nears, Paul could emerge as a dark horse that debate-watchers will go to, as Romney and Gingrich cancel each other out. The bigger problem with Paul is that the GOP elite will never ever endorse him, making it nearly impossible for him to ever land nomination.
In upcoming debates, there are a few things that need to happen. Romney needs to stop staring at opponents while they speak: it is very creepy. Huntsman needs to stop being so diplomatic (he was once asked if he accused Romney of pandering on the idea of a trade war with China; Huntsman didn't back down, but he did not go for the jugular, as he should have). Bachmann created a catchy little jingo with "Newt Romney", but the "Win Win Win" idea was awful and too transparent a ploy to jump on the long derailed "9-9-9" train. Santorum needs to stop bashing gay people and stop talking about his family values. It hasn't worked until now, why will it work in the future? Perry has no hope, but his needling of Romney is great theater and I hope he keeps it up. Actually, I know he will keep at it. And finally, Newt "the ticking time bomb" Gingrich needs to maintain composure and continue batting away all the feeble attacks until he secures the nomination.
I like Huntsman best, so far, but I agree with your estimation. I would like to see more of his actual opinions. The fact that he is a diplomat is in his favor, however. Our President is not the President of just the party that he belongs to. He is the President of the whole US. He has to be a Diplomat to other Heads of State, whether they are in our country, or he is in theirs.
ReplyDeleteThere is one that that you don't seem to see with Bachmann. She makes up her own reality. This has nothing to do with her religious beliefs. The others have strong religious beliefs, mostly, but Bachmann freely changes historical facts, statistics and factual current events. Very freely. I don't want, or trust, a President who does this. It's called being unstable.
Newt has never met a camera that he didn't like. He is personable, even charismatic. But under it, he is for Newt only. His professional ethics, alone, are enough reason to not vote for him. For anything. Newt is smart, has great answers for pretty much any question, and, IMO, would steal the shoes off of a dead man's feet if he thought that it would help him in any way. I remember Newt as a Congressman, as do many of his fellow Congressmen. None of us are willing to see this man as the head of this country.
Thanks for the thought out comment. Bachmann does have a way with number and accusations, but you cannot deny her acceptance within the evangelical community. I do think she is a poor woman's Sarah Palin.
ReplyDeleteIn regard to Gingrich- all of the ethical issues that the media essentially warned us about don't seem to be sticking to voters. For the most part, he has gotten a pass for his marital infidelities, as well as the money received from Fannie Mae. The only smoking gun will be if Nancy Pelosi leaks any extra sensitive info that led to the $300,000 fine that Gingrich received in 1997 for his ethics violation as Speaker. Other than that, he is the clear front runner- Romney is back where he started, circa 2008.