CNN Debate

And then there were four: Newt, Mitt, Rick & Ron go at it again, this time for most, if not all, of the marbles.


FIRST BREAK: things are pretty heated between the four. Everyone's voice seems to be keyed up just a touch, especially Santorum who is really going at both Gingrich and Romney. He's doing a great job selling himself as the "true" conservative but Gingrich and Romney both overshadow him in personality and in - how should I put this - their sense of Destiny. Paul is almost a spectator, not a participant, but I'll bet he will be the last one of the three remaining to drop out.


SECOND BREAK: Newt: "you're right (Rick) I am grandiose. This is a grandiose country." Rick responds by b*tching about Newt not yelling loud enough about the House bank scandal. Newt's really laying out his history as an insurgent and a planner with the long view. Great stuff. Now Mitt's talking about his private sector experience, especially about DC's tendency for taking credit for job creation: great line - "I never spent one day thinking 'Thank God for Washington.'" Romney also does well on the tax return issue, essentially saying I'm not going to do anything just to play along with Democrat class warfare nonsense.


SOPA & PIPA get kicked around a bit. Newt and Mitt both criticize the bill. Ron says he was the first Republican to oppose it and makes a pitch about needing a civil libertarian who can work with coalitions. Santorum says, sure the bill is bad, but we need something to protect against piracy, and then says "where did this idea that everything on the internet must be free come from?"


Everyone's been really on-point, and on fire in this segment. No f*ck-ups or stumbles, although Romney ended a long point by asking "what was the question, again?" Luckily, John King couldn't remember either. Even Ron Paul has been quick and to the point.


THIRD BREAK: this is one of those debates with questions from the audience. Unlike past debates which featured plants, snowmen, and gay soldiers, these questioners look like actual Republican voters. Questions relate to repealing Obamacare, dealing with illegal immigration, and other topics of actual interest. The immigration question sends Newt off on his five bullet points, plus another pitch for local boards to decide on whether a 25-year illegal can stay in the country. Like the janitors, he's put a lot of thought into this.


Great sequence on the pro-life question. Newt accuses Romneycare of paying for abortions. Romney draws himself up and mutters about people questioning his integrity, says abortion isn't mentioned in the bill. Santorum brings down the house when he points out that "health care" is always interpreted by the courts to include abortion, and Romneycare makes no effort to carve out an exception. Romney responds with a list of pro-choice legislation he vetoed.


Note: when CNN tries to move on the crowd begins chanting "Paul! Paul!" Appreciative chuckles from "our constitutionalist" who offers his medical history and then makes a call to change morality, not laws. Still, Paul's pro-life credentials are solid, something that is an underreported aspect of his appeal. He also effectively slaps down Santorum, who chides Paul for voting against pro-life legislation. Paul: "I think abortion is murder, and laws against murder are a matter of state law, not federal." These two are actually fighting each other harder than the others are fighting amongst themselves. And Paul, all 100 lbs. and 75 years of him, is getting the better of the exchange.


FINAL THOUGHTS: I don't mean to be insulting, especially after the graceful manner in which he bowed out of the race, but Rick Perry's absence from the debate really raised the tone of the proceedings. I thought all four candidates performed at a high level, although no one quite achieved the instant iconic status that Newt managed last Monday. 


Mitt Romney showed a lot more fire and energy tonight compared to Monday night when he seemed besieged. His promise to "shove capitalism down Barack Obama's throat" was about as much red meat as you're ever going to get from him, but it was a good line. He was most effective in defending his business experience, which makes me think that his Bain record is not going to be the giant killer of liberal imaginations. 


Newt Gingrich had another great night, kicking things off with a blunt "No" when asked if he would like to discuss his ex-wife's appearance on ABC News. He defended himself and his career as ably as anyone could (and, frankly, no one else is going to help him to do so). You have to love Gingrich's confidence and larger-than-life persona. He hasn't won anything yet (and has been running behind Santorum) yet everyone is acting like this is a Romey-Gingrich contest. 


Rick Santorum has run a fantastic campaign, given his limited resources, and if this were 1996 or 2000 he would be running away with it. No one else has as consistent a record as a conservative. More important, no one else has been simultaneously appealing to social cons, fiscal cons, and security hawks. His only problem is no one can quite imagine his being the nominee, let alone becoming president. 


Ron Paul was as effective in debate as I have ever seen him, no doubt because none of the questions focused on national security matters. Not that this stopped him from repeatedly saying we should stop fighting "all these wars." He repeatedly got the best of Santorum, who was riding Paul all night. He even showed a rare human side, saying his one regret was he lacks the speaking skills to be a truly effective advocate for his cause. (yes, and you might also want to tone down the "we should have arrested Bin Laden" stuff) I also liked when he said he wouldn't release his tax returns because he would be too embarrassed when everyone saw how little he made as compared to Newt and Mitt.  


It goes without saying that, for all the complaining about the weak field, that these four put on a tremendous performance, forcefully advocating Republican and conservative positions of one degree or another. Ron Paul has been derided as "crazy." Both Gingrich and Santorum have been called "extreme" at various points in their careers. Romney is, of course, a member of the Evil Rich. But, honestly, I don't see how anyone could watch their presentations and conclude that they were part of some kooky fringe. Each of them, in their way, were advocating for free markets, free people, the rule of law, fiscal responsibility, and above all respect for the Constitution. It's heartening to think that such values will have a strong advocate no matter who wins the nomination (all four of these guys are ready). But, it's depressing to think how hard they'll have to work to beat the Democrats who oppose everything we hold dear. 

GOP Debate Comments

The Free Will Wife and I are watching the live stream of the GOP debate, and I wanted to quickly comment on the incredibly lame line of questioning, directed mostly at Mitt Romney, about whether a state could ban contraception. Give me a break! The Supreme Court's Griswald decision (which was the first application of the new found "right to privacy" to a state's efforts to legislate morality) came back in 1965! Not surprisingly, Mitt was flummoxed at first for two reasons:


1. he didn't remember the Griswald decision


2. it was an absurd question because there are no states in the year 2012 that are considering a ban on contraceptives.


The fact is this was a question intended to make Republicans look like grim-visaged Cotton Mathers, and nothing more. The focus on contraception (?!) at this late date is just ridiculous. Mitt handled this about as well as you could expect, saying first that he preferred to defer to "our constitutionalist" before finally saying "I think things are working just fine" to appreciative laughter from the crowd (which vigorously booed Stephenopolous's continued harping on the condom question).


Ron Paul, by the way, turned the "right to privacy" question into a 4th Amendment diatribe about the Patriot Act. If all you have is a hammer...


QUICK HITS:


Rick Santorum is standing in the middle dais next to the front runner. What a difference a week makes. He sounds great, too. Maybe not presidential, but he is absolutely ready for his close-up.


John Huntsman sounds a lot like Mitt Romney. He also got a lot of applause when he basically made the Obama argument in favor of pulling troops out of Afghanistan by 2013. National security hawks who have been b*tching about Pentagon cuts do not have the sort of automatic support from Republicans that they used to have.


Huntsman also said that he worked in the "most complex" embassy in the world (meaning China's). What's complex about it? Are there secret tunnels? Hidden passageways? A guest house?


In defending himself from the "racist newsletter" question, Ron Paul mentioned his efforts to end the war on drugs and the war of terror, which he claimed have disproportionately fallen on minorities. That is pure left-wing cant.


Still give the guy his due: he's out there, at age 80+ kicking a** and putting his ideas out as vigorously as a 20-year old.


Rick Perry is doing great, even though he's stuck off on the edge of the stage where they used to put Michele Bachmann. But, am I imagining things, or did he just say he wanted to re-invade Iraq?


You can probably get pretty drunk playing the Newt Gingrich drinking game. That's where you take a drink every time he begins a response by saying "we need to fundamentally re-think how we (implement this or that policy)."


Gingrich and Huntsman are really taking it to Romney. Gingrich is using the "too timid" argument, while Huntsman is contrasting his stewardship of Utah against Romney's in Massachusetts.


It's 7:30 PST, and Rick Santorum just gave a rousing 60-second statement on the economy and the opportunity society.


Romney and Huntsman really got into a fight over China policy. Huntsman got the best of it, making the free trade argument against Romney's trade-war mongering. But, Romney "won" with his harsh (in a nice way) reminder that Huntsman just spent 2 years implementing Obama Administration policy in Beijing.


For the "personal moment" phase of the questioning, the query was what would you be doing tonight if you weren't running for president? 


Perry said he would be at a shooting range. 


Newt said he would be watching the "college basketball championship," 


Santorum and Romney said they would be watching the college football championship


Ron Paul said be would be spending time with his family, but if they went to sleep, he would read an economics textbook.


Huntsman said he would be on the phone with his sons in the Navy, who give him faith in the coming generation (cue grateful applause). 

Predictions: GOP 2012 Edition

I wasn't going to do one of those 2012 predictions, but I just can't resist. Herewith are the official Free Will predictions for the Republican presidential nomination race: 


1. Newt Gingrich will fail to reach 10% in the Iowa caucuses. He will also fail to reach 10% in South Carolina or Florida. Like Howard Dean in 2004, he will continue competing, but will not be a factor. 


2. Michele Bachmann will fail to crack 5% in Iowa, and will drop out of the race. Which will be too damn bad. 


3. John Huntsman will fail to crack 10% in New Hampshire and will drop out of the race. 


4. Rick Satorum will slightly under-perform in Iowa (I'd say 15%). His message and persona will fail to spark any interest in South Carolina, and he will drop out of the race. 


5. Rick Perry will slightly over-perform in Iowa, and then do very well in South Carolina. He will try to make a serious play for the Tea Party/Sarah Palin/Ron Paul vote, and even succeed at that for a while. But, when it comes time to slam Mitt Romney as Mr. Wall Street, he will be unable to do so without coming across as anti-business, not to mention inarticulate. (cue sound of Tim Pawlenty kicking himself in the a**). 


6. Ron Paul will get over 20% of the vote in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina and several other states (but no big ones like Florida or Ohio). He will be the subject of withering media scrutiny previously reserved for the likes of Sarah Palin and Pat Buchanan, which hurt him, but not kill him outright. He will be joining Rick Perry and Mitt Romney on the debate stage for months. While much will be made of his "crazy uncle" ravings and his racist newsletters, no one in the professional media and political classes will wonder why his message is so potent as to attract significant support despite his manifest deficiencies. Look for Paul to have a major speaking slot at the convention as the price for keeping away from a third party run. Look also for that speech to be a 21st century version of 1992's "we are in a cultural war" barn burner. 


7. Barring death, incapacity, or a thermonuclear-grade gaffe so embarrassing as to make him literally vanish into a hole in the ground, Mitt Romney will be the nominee. But, he's going to have to break a sweat to earn the nomination. Romney will rise to the occasion and take on Obama on his own turf, but it will be a close run thing. Conservative voters will turn out to vote for him in November, but will put most of their energy (and $$) into House and Senate candidates who promise to be "independent voices" in Washington, meaning they will run - in part - to act as a counter-weight to the Republican nominee. 

Back On The Blog & Catching Up

Free Will HQ is now moved into its new space, and its wi-fi now fully operational, which means it's time to get blogging. I've had posts stacked up like late flights out of O'Hare:


1. The Newt Surge hasn't exactly faded, but he's measurably lost a step in the last week. That's not surprising as he's been getting it pretty hard from both Mitt Romney and Ron Paul. Newt also set off alarm bells about his repeated comments about sending US Marshals to haul activist judges to testify before Congress. That's what people mean about Newt's tendency to shoot himself in the foot. He starts off saying something unimpeachable like, say, "welfare as we know it must be  reformed," or "the judiciary is out of control and Congress should be more aggressive in asserting itself against judges that act as a second veto against legislation." But, then someone - no doubt with a twinkle in their voice - asks Newt what he would do to accomplish this, and Newt starts babbling about re-opening orphanages, or arresting judges, or hiring kids to work as janitors. He's obviously making it up as he's going along, but his off-the-cuff solutions often harm the cause (although, we did get a balanced budget and welfare reform, regardless).


2. I loved Mitt Romney's comment about how Newt's complaining that it's getting a little hot in the kitchen. Wait 'til you have to enter Obama's Hell's Kitchen in the fall, says Mr. Mitt. Romney's definitely been feisty these last few weeks. 


3. Looks like Ron Paul's racist newsletter past has finally caught up with him. Everyone was critical of Herman Cain for failing to have a rapid response ready for the Sharon Bialek's in his past. But, Paul has looked just as surprised to find out people are finding offensive passages in newsletters written within the last 20 years. 


4. Still, Paul's economic message is so compelling to many voters that the newsletters haven't caused much trouble (yet). It's a measure of how much Paul's issues - The Fed, the overweening government, etc. - resonate with voters that they will overlook his truly backwards approach to foreign policy and, apparently, race relations. Rick Perry has been actively chasing after Paul's voters, and if Paul implodes that might benefit the governor. 


5. Speaking of the judiciary and the overweening federal government,  Newt's attack on the judiciary, while bracing, was really targeting the wrong bad actor. 99% of the time, judges are enforcing laws drafted by Congress and signed by the president. The problem often isn't out-of-control judges. It's out-of-control laws that grant too much legal power to activist litigants like the Sierra Club or ACORN to act as private attorneys general to enforce liberal legislation. 


6. Also speaking of the judiciary and the overweening federal government, former SF baseball god Barry Bonds was sentenced to probation and a month's home detention in his fabulous Beverly Hills mansion. The full weight of the US Dept. of Justice came down on Bonds, and he emerged...pretty well. Given what we now know about the Bernie Madoffs of the world, it's starting to look like the federal government's expensive grandstanding on the Very Important Issue of steroids in baseball was a colossal misuse of resources. A DJ on the local classic rock station put it best: $70 million to prosecute Bonds and other steroid users, $15 million for the 9/11 Commission. 


7. And, Free Will Nobelist Vaclav Havel died. Normally, the left loves literary dissidents, but they didn't have much use for Havel, who was unabashedly pro-American, pro-Reagan, and anti-socialist. In a just world, he would have won the Nobel for Literature, as well as the Peace Prize for presiding over not one, but two, bloodless revolutions - the Velvet Revolution and then the subsequent break-up of Czechoslovakia. That's the thing about the free-markets for free people Right: we might not have as many icons as the left, but the ones we do have - our Churchills, Thatchers, Reagans, and Havels - can beat out a dozen Che's, Chavezes, Castros, Mandelas, Menchus, Arafats, Sartres, Malcolms, Hillarys, Jesses, Maos, and Obamas

Rise & Fall, Rise & Fall: The GOP Primary

Hugh Hewitt, and others, are starting to declare that the Gingrich surge has already peaked and is losing air thanks to a brusque comment Newt made RE: Mitt Romney's previous life as an investment banker:

MSM is always behind when it comes to recognizing significant stories on the center-right.  Even now most of them are unaware that Newt's campaign is in grave danger of  bleeding out, though if they listened to talk radio or watched FNC's Special Report they would have been in the know for two days.

When on Monday Newt Gingrich attacked Mitt Romney's time at Bain, I posted the video first posted by Time's Mark Halperin (nearly alone among the MSMers in sensing it was important) and devoted my entire show to the significance of the one-minute self-immolation.  As my radio show began, so did Brett Baier's television show and during my breaks I listened in as I usually do to see what that superbly produced program is covering, and found that the shock at Gingrich's remarks had instantly struck two of conservatism's most influential television presences. I thus wove into my show the audio of the critiques that occurred simultaneously from Charles Krauthammer and Brit Hume.  All three of us and many in the audience had reacted the same way to Newt's outburst:  That wasn't a "gaffe," a 57-state $10,000 bet on naming three agencies; that was a defining moment. 

Gingrich supporters called the show to protest that it wasn't a big deal.  Even yesterday pro-Newt callers gamely tried to explain the Laws of Newtonian Rhetoric and why under them the former Speaker didn't mean what he had said.  Gingrich himself released a letter promising to stay positive and exiled an Iowa staffer who had played a Mormon card in Iowa. 

That pledge to stay high road won't save Newt's surge because the shock wasn't at taking a swing at Romney.  That's to be expected.  It is because of the substance of the attack, the adoption of class warfare rhetoric at exactly a moment when the conservative movement is sick-to-death of the OWS and the president's serial assaults on the private sector.

Could be. Many of us have been sitting around waiting for the "new Newt" to self-destruct. In the time-compressed world of 24-7 news, this one's right on time. However, Romney fans eagerly looking for the tell tale signs of Newt-mageddon might want to check their wishes at the door, as the next in line in Iowa is not Mitt, but ... Ron Paul

Ron Paul, the once-forgotten presidential candidate, is picking up steam in Iowa and now appears poised to overtake frontrunner Newt Gingrich, according to a new survey released today from the left-leaning Public Policy Polling. 

The poll finds support for Gingrich has slipped to 22%, with Ron Paul just behind with 21%. Mitt Romney trails in third place with 16%. 

That's a five-point drop in favorability for Gingrich, who has raced to the top of the Republican presidential field over the past month. PPP found Gingrich's favorability numbers have fallen 19 points over the past week.

A funny moment in the Drake University debate was when the candidates were asked what they had learned from one another. I thought everyone, especially Rick Perry, went out of their way to be verrrry nice to Congressman Paul. No doubt, that's to keep him on the reservation and off the third party trail. But, the man also has some serious king-maker potential. 


I think we can all agree that, on foreign policy, Paul is worse than a Democrat. But on economics and domestic policy? I don't think I'm alone in thinking we should have spent more time in 2008 listening to "crazy uncle Ron" who spent an inordinate amount of time warning us about the Fed, the housing bubble, and the impending financial crisis, something that Mr. Wall Street - that's Mitt Romney to you - seemed absolutely clueless about. And how much of a deal breaker is Paul's ramblings about the war machine? His most prominent critic this time around has been Rick Santorum who has languished as much as Paul has risen. 


All of this remains academic, of course. This time, four years ago, John McCain was running in third in Iowa as Mike Huckabee prepared to shock the world ("Nobody believed in us!") at the caucuses. The ultimate result - Obama in the White House, McCain back in the Senate, Huckabee on a TV show - could hardly have been extrapolated from the date available in December 2007. We've still got a long way to go. 

Debating Points: The Last Republican Debate

Last Saturday, I did something I had not yet done this year: I watched a Republican presidential debate all the way through. Did it help that this one had "only" six participants? Yeah, a little bit (sorry, Herman Cain), but more important was the rise of Newt Gingrich and the rapid approach of the Iowa caucuses, which have really raised the intensity meter.


There's plenty of critical commentary about each of the candidates (Mitt Romney's desperate! Ron Paul's crazy! So's Michele Bachmann!), but I had the opposite reaction. With a couple exceptions, I thought everyone did well, at times exceptionally so. 


Newt Gingrich was the focus, not only of attacks from Mitt Romney and Michele Bachmann, but also from the moderators, who seemed to structure the questions, and even the order in which candidates responded, to provide maximum discomfort to Newt. When George Stephenopolis raised the (ahem) "infidelity" issue, you just knew that Gingrich would be the last one to respond. He was largely on top of his game, mostly so on the alleged "Palestinians-are-an-invented-people" gaffe, an opportunity which let him make a Reaganesque pitch while simultaneously letting Mitt Romney look like a detente-ing Gerald Ford. 


We hear often that Gingrich is great...except for all that baggage, both marital, historical, and reputational. Well, after the last 20 years in which American voters have essentially demanded tax cuts and expanded government spending, I'd say the voting public has some baggage of its own that it needs to get over. 


Mitt, of course, had his now-infamous "bet" with Rick Perry, which came across as more awkward than arrogant. (and, whatever the merits were, Mitt did shut Perry up for the moment). But, he had some great moments, too. When he made his pitch in support of Romneycare, he pointed out that they did what they promised to do: extend health insurance to the 8% of MA residents who lacked coverage, something Obamacare failed to do. In that moment, you could imagine an effective critique of Obamacare in the general election, even from the guy who, in Michele Bachmann's words, was the first and only governor to impose socialized medicine in one of the laboratories of democracy. 


Speaking of Bachmann, I really wonder what non-conservatives think of her. We all know what liberals, the media, and the entertainment world think of her: they think she's crazy, and are rushing around wildly trying to make that her image. But Bachmann presents herself very well, looking stylish and composed, even as she fights furiously for the life of her campaign. She had a lot of striking phrases in her debate moments, especially "Newt Romney," which sounded like a mistake at first, but one that she decided to roll with to humorous effect. At this point, I think she's established herself as the most persistent and coherent critic of the president. If she sometimes seems to head into the rhetorical tall weeds, she manages to come back. I think people gave up on her candidacy too quickly. 


The other "true conservative" - that would be Rick Santorum - also impressed. He also did a good job coming across as human, which he's very good at (he's a genuinely nice, good-humored man), but the haters on the Left have focused their deranged ire on him for years. Many have wondered why he is running. The better question is why have so many supposedly "better" candidates not run. I'm sure they have their reasons, but at some point you have to step into the arena.


Of course, Rick Perry has been the cautionary tale about stepping into the arena before having your sandals tied and your shield polished. His has been an epic flame-out because, God love him, he comes across as slow-witted, and Republicans want - just once - to enter an election with a candidate who won't come across as a fumble tongue. Perry's still chipping away, though, looking relaxed and confident while trying to puncture Romney's patrician cool. There's was one heart-stopping moment when he held up two fingers and said - regarding the recently downed drone in Iran - Pres. Obama had three choices. D'oh! Still Perry's bluntness has its benefits. He closed the "Palestinian" question off by simply saying that the problems in the Middle East aren't due to Newt Gingrich, but to the incompetence of the current president, which earned grateful applause from the crowd, and an appreciative tip o' the head from Newt. 


And, no debate since 2008 has been complete without Ron Paul, but even he came off well, even telling a joke (my wife worked my way through medical school! Ba-dum-bum!) He also had the line of the night in response to Diane Sawyer querulous plaint that, surely, the government has some role in helping people take care of their health (i.e. prevent obesity, etc.) Ron was having none of it: If you need the government to tell you how to live you are in big trouble. So true, but so hard for many Republicans, especially the precious moderates, to understand. 


This was a debate that touched on hot button issues, but - unlike years past when questions about gay marriage and abortion were the flavor - the issues were hot because they are so desperately resonant. We are a country with spiralling debt, a health care system being abused by the government, an immigration policy on auto-pilot for the past 10 years, etc. Maybe liberals were hoping one of the six would say something verifiably crazy, but what I saw were six serious people with serious answers to vexing questions. The only thing you could say were "wrong" about their answers were that they did not embrace the liberal pieties and prescriptions that have been this country's default setting for too long. 


Maybe this isn't the Republican A-team, but they are the ones who are taking the trouble to run for president, and they acquitted themselves well. 

The Nine: How Are the GOP Presidential Candidates Doing?

We've had three debates since Rick Perry entered the race and "solidified" the field. Say what you will about tactics, consultants, southern strategies, and Ed Rollins, it never fails to amaze how the awesome task of running for president always comes down to the candidate themselves. In the last three weeks, we've seen some people help themselves immensely, and we've seen others do incalculable harm, often while being themselves. Let's go down the roll call.

Michelle Bachmann: Just three weeks ago, Lady Icarus was running in second, had driven Tim Pawlenty from the race, and was offering witheringly effective critiques of the president. Then Rick Perry entered the race, and Bachmann went on TV and announced that vaccines cause "mental retardation." From Tea Party Queen to Lunatic Fringe in the space of one sentence. Depressing.

Herman Cain: I keep hearing how Cain can't win, that he's nothing but a pizzaman, and that he'll never rise from the second tier. But, he keeps winning these debates, at least according to the Luntz focus groups, and the hive mind of the right-wing blogosphere. He's also been admirably above the fray, refusing to violate Ronald Reagan's 11th commandment.

Newt Gingrich: yesterday's man has been putting his intellect and debating skills on full display, but he'll never escape his past. Gingrich deserves all praise for the 1994 revolution, and his toe-to-toe battles with the Clintons, but he legislated as a Big Government Republican, thus frittering away the '94 mandate. He is fundamentally untrustworthy.

John Huntsman: the one thing Huntsman has going for him is his tax reform/economic plan, which is serious and conservative. That is undercut by his smarmy presentation and his smug certitude about global warming and evolution.

Gary Johnson: the cool kids have been agitating for Johnson to be included in these debates, and he brought...poop jokes. Cribbed from Rush Limbaugh.

Ron Paul: agreed that Paul's foreign policy is to the left of Dennis Kucinich, but on economics and the role of government in society, he is - incredibly - still a lonely voice. His answer describing what society would do for the hypothetical dying young man was very thoughtful and even moving (in describing his medical practice pre-Great Society Paul said "we never turned anyone away"). Shades of 2008 when Paul was cast as the "crazy uncle" when he started ranting about the Fed, Wall Street, and the overweening government that was driving us all to ruin.

Rick Perry: "the race is very fluid," "it's a long time before Iowa," "it's a marathon, not a sprint." But, Rick Perry's lackluster debate performances have been killing him. You can be as conservative as you want, but if conservatives can't see that you will be able to beat the glib Obama in a debate, then it's no sale. Perry's outrageous claim that "you have no heart" if you don't support in-state tuition for illegal immigrants may be his "vaccines cause mental retardation;" the line that kills his candidacy. Sorry, jerk, but I just don't see how failing to support special privileges to illegal immigrants is racist or cruel.

Mitt Romney: I have no great eagerness to see Romney as the nominee, but I gotta say he has really stepped up his game since Perry got into the race. His presentation has been solid. His critiques of Obama have been sharp. And, John Nolte points out that he has demonstrated a real ability to neutralize the anti-GOP media. But, Romney remains fundamentally untrustworthy because he has already demonstrated that he would govern as a Big Government conservative. Romney certainly fits the ABO role well. But, a Romney win could easily mean that Obamacare will not be repealed. If he is to be the nominee, we'll need a lot more Tea Party members of Congress.

Rick Santorum: another second-tier guy who has been putting in first-tier debate performances. This is why you include some of the lower eschalon candidates in these early debates. One of them always shines, even as his campaign is little more than his wife and kids knocking on doors. If nothing else changes, I think Cain or Santorum will "shock the world" in Iowa, and emerge as this cycle's Huckabee.