I’m afraid I have to agree with several of the CNN commentators, who chose Mitt Romney, Michele Bachman, and Newt Gingrich as the three best performers. Romney was the clear leader, and he didn’t damage himself in any way, and none of the other debaters attacked him. His comments about Obama were sharp and critical.
Michele announced that she filed her papers yesterday to begin her presidential run. She also managed to reveal a lot of biographical information – she had been a tax attorney, had run her own company, and is currently serving on the House security committee. She has birthed five children, and she and her husband have taken in an astounding 23 foster children to boot! Her answers were well phrased and to the point.
Newt didn’t seem to get the same number of minutes as say, Herman Cain and Ron Paul, but when he did get to speak, he did well.
I rate Romney, Bachman, and Gingrich as the heavyweights of the group. The light-heavyweights were Santorum and Pawlenty, with Pawlenty getting the edge. Any of these five could emerge as the candidate, in my opinion, but the heavyweights seem more likely to do so. However, there are others who may enter the race: Huntsman, Perry, and possibly even Christie.
The flyweights were Paul and Cain. Paul’s remarks are long and not totally coherent. Cain’s formulaic response to how he will address a problem gets old fast, going something like: “I’m a problem solver. First, I define the problem exactly. Then I call together the experts and we work out . . .”
David Gergen, one of CNN’s post-debate commentators, lamented that the candidates didn’t attack each other – they only attacked Obama. And, he thought they were a much more conservative group than those of 2008.
In truth, the candidates did a really good job of expressing the conservative position on many of today’s issues, and of pointing out Obama’s mismanagement.