Let me start off by saying that it is quite palpable that certain leaders on that stage are not going to win the nomination.
Let’s start with the radicals. The restaurant owner Cain,with his 9-9-9 plan, is proposing to base our nation’s tax policy on a catchy slogan. Never mind that there are severe differences between corporations, the middle class and unemployed single mothers, never mind that there are others debating every detail of the tax code, never mind that there are groups like hard pressed farmers and green energy startups need government aid; let’s have 9-9-9! Some of his other comments on fixing FEMA and adapting the Chilean model of social security seemed reasonable, but I doubt if any rational citizens will be voting for this demagogue when his opening statement is “9-9-9!”
Bachman too, with her promise of $2.00 a gallon gas, seems to consider Americans still gullible enough to believe every word of their politicians. Oh, I know that by saying, “politicians can’t be trusted”, she’s trying to paint herself as a politician that can be trusted, but I predict her image and her lead over Jon Huntsman is about to take the flight path of the Hindenburg. A candidate that thinks the president can arbitrarily cut the price of gas by one half seems to be oblivious to the fact that if such a feat were at all close to possible, gas would still be a few pennies a gallon. Also, did anyone else catch that she completely ignored the question on how she would treat the 11 million illegal immigrants in America after she builds her thousand mile long fence? The only skill she’s well versed in is in bashing Obama-care.
Then there are the incompetent incumbents. I had no idea how to spell “Santorum”, and when I googled the word, the leading results were about sexual froth. MSNBC’s internet poll on who won the debate showed him to be dead last with 1%. At first look, I thought the Republican Party was trying to humor a mentally handicapped man’s dream of being on stage with prominent politicians. His drooping jaw and dazed countenance completely obscured any insightful comments he made. When he was discussing lowering corporate tax to draw businesses to America and repatriate outsourced jobs, all I could think about was that 5 seconds earlier, he had been listening to the question with the expression of a confounded 3rd grader. Sending that man to be the face of America would be akin to asking Rain Man to lead our nation. He might be a political genius, but until he learns some presentation skills I guarantee he will remain behind sexual froth in google search results.
Although Ron Paul made a better appearance than Santorum, his answers were every bit as challenged-seeming as Santorum’s looks. Perhaps he is unaware that bandying phrases like “I don’t like”, “probably”, “I would assume that”, and “I don’t know for sure” is political suicide. Even Michele Bachman’s complete avoidance of hard questions seemed to provide a better countenance. His backing of states rights though, was sustained and will no doubt draw some conservative votes. His ability to interrupt questioning to get his opinions in also shows more assertiveness than the docile Santorum.
The real candidates according to my opinion would be Perry, Romney, and Huntsman. All three have some records to play, like Utah’s number one place in job creation, Texas’s number one place in air pollution reduction, and private sector success. Perry’s history of creating more jobs seemed impressive too, and Romney’s plans to empower small businesses will no doubt gain numerous votes. Huntsman’s working healthcare system in Utah and his experience with China will no doubt place him high up on the list of men who can solve America’s pressing problems. They seem committed to the real issues; Romney didn’t go on a tirade about his Tea Party involvement, and Huntsman got the debate back on track to jobs after it became a discourse on the Department of Homeland Security and TSA. Perry’s rejection of the reality of global warming though, made him to appear a stronger proponent of Texas’s natural resource industries than of world health. But that’s damage he can afford to take in an America that seems to have put climate change in the back of its mind.
And finally, there was Gingrich. He was conciliatory and made an effort to seem like a leader that would unite the Republican Party, but that’s all I remember of him. I review my notes and see that he bashed Obama, Obama’s Bernanke, and Obama’s healthcare a few times too. There’s nothing to criticize, but no oratorical fireworks either. However, if he remains this lackluster the rest of the Primaries, that would be something to criticize.
The race will go on, and as the radicals and the incompetents drop out, the race should also become less entertaining to watch. But that’s not a bad thing; we need politicians that highlight reasoned policy ideas and budget and medical care plans more than we need a humorous political farce. Lets see what wonders the Republican Party gives us down the road!
