It’s safe to predict that at least one of the four remaining candidates for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination will drop out after next week’s Arizona and Michigan primaries. While it’s a pretty sure bet who won’t leave, I’d like to take this time to assess all of their performances from last night’s Arizona debate and offer a little constructive criticism in case they want to try again next time. I should note that I started watching about halfway through and didn’t see it all, so we’ll focus less on platforms and more on delivery, consistency and general panache.
Former Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA): The best of the four at giving straight answers, which really isn’t saying much, especially in light of that “I’ll just ignore your question” moment at the end. Plenty of pandering and looks of “Aw, how cute, he thinks he can beat me.” Has a bizarre tendency to demand more law enforcement/military personnel, which isn’t exactly fiscally conservative. Also has a tendency to ignore when President Obama does what he says he’d do.
Former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA): Highly amusing to see him attempt to explain away his crazy/hypocritical moments. (The more you have to do that, the likelier that you really are crazy/hypocritical.) Has a habit of wasting time on things which he says wouldn’t require new federal initiatives on his watch, i.e. contraception. A lot of outright bullshit against Obama. Even more fear-mongering on foreign policy. I wouldn’t trust him to defend my picnic against an ant.
Former Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA): Very rarely has a tangible plan to deal with anything directly. Interesting thoughts on some underlying causes, but I must emphasize the “under”; no sense of urgency in there anywhere. Deferential to “military leaders” until he disagrees with them. Not convincing anyone that President Reagan spent much time bothering with him. Actually cracked a couple of good jokes, which is a big step for him.
Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX): Definitely the best of the four on social issues, if you’re like me. Like Gingrich, has a problem staying on task and saving the underlying causes for later. Usually takes five seconds for him to figure out how to connect a question with one or ten of his standard talking points. Very strong against the other three, but not so strong with people who aren’t turned on by his pet causes. I still feel like he’d push for his own ideas strongly enough to flout limits on the presidential office.
Winner: Paul, because I didn’t roll my eyes as much when he talked as I did when the other three talked. Also, moderator John King for asking some real hard ones.
