............AND THEN THERE WERE TWO

For all but hardcore political junkies, last night’s Huckabee debate was a non-event. To the engaged but casual observer, everyone comported themselves well and there were no major flubs. To those folks, the forum probably served simply to reinforce their existing preferences. To the heavily addicted among us however, the picture was quite different. Those of us wearing our politically microscopic lenses saw two candidates (Newt and Mitt) well ahead of the crowd; two candidates who were the crowd (Bachmann and Santorum); One candidate struggling to keep up with the crowd (Perry) and one candidate running around asking, “Where’s the crowd?!” (Ron Paul).

.

After Romney’s disastrous interview with Brett Baier, I wondered if he would hold up to the strain of being questioned individually by three lawyers. He did, although the questioners were not nearly as persistent in their follow-ups as was Brett. Romney has a Presidential bearing and we now know that he can speak intelligently for a full eleven minutes divided between several different topics. He remains Newt’s most formidable competitor. Newt was Newt: crisp, direct, knowledgeable, unflappable. Newt’s performances have been so steady that if he ever does have a bad day, it won’t go unnoticed.

.

Bachmann (whose rabid dog tendencies were kept in check by the non-attack format) came across well although she had a tendency to answer questions that weren’t asked and avoided answering those that were. Santorum gave the impression that he would govern from a pulpit. Whether or not one agrees that there should be a temporary truce on social issues, a Republican candidate in this environment who comes across like he is more interested in making you go to church than fixing the economy simply stands NO CHANCE in the general election. These two came across as competent but more campaign than substance. It is interesting that both these candidates have little to recommend them by way of their background and accomplishments, yet they are able to play up their achievements to best advantage. Perry on the other hand, a man with outstanding credentials, gets no respect at all for his achievements in Texas.

.

Watching Perry was just painful. He is so pretty that you want him to do well, and he seems like a really nice guy! But he went from being clueless on some questions (by what authority can an Executive Order override enacted legislation?) to once again flailing about for a winning message (part-time Congress), to also supplying answers to questions that had no relationship to the ones he had been asked. His halting style also does not instill confidence. Perry needs to give his money to Newt and go back to Texas with the understanding that he has reached his level of incompetence.

In what should have been Ron Paul’s night to shine (a forum on the Constitution and the 10th Amendment), Paul came across as confused and rambling. Answers that contain the phrase (“. . .and all that stuff,” are not awe inspiring). With all the “fake eyebrow” controversy swirling around Paul, it did look like those brows of his were dancing on his face. The right one in particular looked almost vertical most of the time. Odd.

All the remaining candidates will hold on through Iowa. My guess is that after Iowa we pair down to three candidates plus Ron Paul (who will hang in through the convention). Santorum and Perry will see the writing after Iowa although Perry’s money may keep him in a while longer (as will Bachmann’s ego) in the hope that Newt falters. After Iowa however, it should come down to Newt v. Romney in a spirited race. Romney is not at all likely to roll over (Particularly with proportional distribution of delegates until April). Perhaps after Iowa, however, the candidates can breach the confines of these 3-minute-per-topic forums and show the actual depth of their understanding of the issues and their intention for addressing them.

I have to believe Newt wins that contest.