By now, all of my followers and readers (all maybe 10 of you) should be aware that Rick Santorum has exited the race, citing his devotion to Bella and the fact that any realistic chances of winning the primary were beginning to slip away.  Hence, I am now forced to support Mitt Romney, even though I have hardly sugarcoated my disdain for the man.  That the Republican Party is forced to nominate a man that cannot excite a majority of his own party is a testament to the dismal field of candidates that ran for the office this year, and of the deep divisions within the Party, itself.  Yes, Newt may still technically have a shot at winning, and yes, Ron Paul will continue to carry on his crusade and attempt to commandeer the nomination by circumventing democracy (in other words, his policy of trying to have as many delegates elected who will ignore the results of their districts and vote for only him in the convention), but will really just continue to spread his message and hope to get a few points onto the 2012 GOP Platform.  But, let’s face the facts: Mitt Romney will be the nominee now, and we must focus on the “greater good:” defeating President Obama.

            No matter how many reservations one may have about Mitt Romney, the stakes are simply too high to allow the President to remain in office for another four years, especially since the President is term limited.  It does not take a genius to realize that when one does not face the prospect of reelection, one is freer to do what he wants.  This principle manifests itself in autocratic nations to be sure, but it also manifests itself in democratic nation where a leader is barred from reelection and has nothing to lose by showing his true colors and pushing whatever he wants.  Even the great comedian, Chris Rock, knows this to be true and has stated that the President’s second term will be a “gangsta Presidency.”  Four years is a long time to accomplish things, especially if the President has a majority of support in Congress.  Combine that with the loss of the Blue Dog Coalition (which was basically what the landslide GOP Midterm Victories were in 2010), and the President will be able to impose as much hard-left legislation as he likes.  Should the Supreme Court fail to uphold the Constitution and allow Obamacare to continue, the President will have all of the legal backing he needs and wants to transform America into a nation based off of the socialist governments of Europe, especially Germany and Britain.  While these nations are by no means representative of the USSR, China, and North Korea, the demise of socialism is beginning to become evident in the collapse of the EU, the euro, and most of the economies of Europe.  Why would we want to copy these failures by becoming an even greater welfare state, as the President wishes to do?  If the President is reelected, he has no reason to fear advancing such agendas and permanently transforming the country. 

            Furthermore, if the Supreme Court supports Obamacare and upholds its supposed constitutionality (which, objectively, there is none), then the General Election of 2012 will be the last defense against it becoming a permanent fixture in this country.  Once you give “free” stuff to the masses, it is impossible to take it back.  If President Obama wins reelection and the Supreme Court upholds the law, Obamacare will never be repealed.  Like Social Security, Medicare, and the British NHS, it will become a “third rail” of politics, and any future attempts to derail the legislation will be fruitless and the equivalent of political suicide.  The brave Governor Walker may have it tough right now in Wisconsin for merely stripping collective bargaining “rights” from state workers, but his predicament will be a walk in the park compared to the tarring and feathering of any politician who attempts to strike down Obamacare after this year.  Mitt Romney may have created “Romneycare,” and thus cannot be completely trusted on this issue, but at least he has pledged to repeal Obamacare (even if, in a bizarre interpretation of “states’ rights,” it means simply giving the power to the states to become socialist republics like Massachusetts) and presents a greater opportunity to do so.  If Republicans lose in the Supreme Court and lose the general election, we will have authorized the nationalization of 1/6 of the economy, exactly the same percentage of nationalization that Britain experienced under Clement Attlee and had to be rectified by Margaret Thatcher. 

            These are the reasons why I am done trying to defeat the establishment this time around.  Mitt is far from perfect, nee, hardly palatable, but he is better than Obama.  I will not defect to either of the other two candidates.  Newt Gingrich would be an electoral disaster and is a lying scumbag.  He may be the best debater, but I do not believe that he actually believes anything that comes out of his mouth.  He also would be the worst to represent the traditional family values that make up the core of the Republican Party given his past indiscretions.  As for Dr. Ron Paul, his militant supporters have permanently lost him any chance of primary season support from me.  The “hero worship” that I have seen displayed by his followers is so extreme that it even trumps Obama’s manipulative powers in ’08.  Ironically, the “lover of liberty” would have the easiest time becoming a totalitarian dictator.  I like many of the man’s policies, but detest him on foreign policy issues, the “honest rape” issue, and do not believe that he could successfully destroy the bureaucracy.  As for whether he could defeat Obama, I guess he could potentially win over some supporters of his foreign and drug policies (which make up a decent chunk of the Democratic Party), but has even less of a shot of mobilizing the Republican base than Romney does.  If supporting Ron Paul did not require a conversion almost as extreme as Saul’s, I might be willing to back him.  But people settle for Romney, no one settles for Paul. 

            Summarily, it is time for the Republican Party to unite and work to defeat Obama.  This means that absolutely everyone must be willing to put aside their (quite understandable) reservations and vote for Mitt.  Ron Paul must not mount a third-party bid and his supporters must not stay home and moan about violating their principles and voting for the lesser of two evils.  Normally, I would advocate voting with your conscience, but the stakes are simply too high.  As Senator Santorum said, this is possibly “the most important election in American history.”  I hate being a pragmatist, but boycotting this election or writing in third-party candidates is the same as a vote for Obama.  Romney, I will admit, is not a conservative and inspires me about as much as James Buchanan, but he is a better choice than President Obama and has the best shot of defeating the incumbent.  And the longer the GOP continues the infighting and targeting of the Governor, the bleaker his chances are at winning.  We must unite as one party and dedicate everything to saving America by defeating President Obama (Romney could help his case by picking a popular, competent running mate like, say, Governor Bobby Jindal).  Thus, I am throwing in the towel, backing Mitt Romney, and hoping that he is truly the one who will “bring balance to the Force,”  If the Jedi could settle for Anakin Skywalker, I suppose the GOP can settle for Mitt. 

Debate Performances

Newt Gingrich: Without question, Newt was the winner of tonight’s debate.  He reverted to his usual form of debating best when he is down in the polls.  He, of course, said some dumb things (like wanting to put Rick Perry in charge of something other than the state of Texas), but avoided talking about space colonies and gave strong answers that resonated well with the audience.  Overall, I would give him a B+/A- for the night.

Ron Paul: Normally, I am hesitant to give Cong. Paul more credit than my man, Santorum, but he delivered a strong second place finish tonight, simply because he did not stutter, give contradictory answers, or look rattled.  As usual, he delivered his signature lines about foreign policy that resemble Neville Chamberlain too much for my liking, and sounded semi-conspiratorial about the nefarious “neocons,” but he was confident and did as well as he normally does.  I give him a solid B for the night.

Rick Santorum: By far, this was his weakest debate.  On a night when he needed to be on the offensive, he was too defensive and rattled by the perpetual tag-teaming of the other three candidates on his record.  He was simply awful when the discussion was centered on earmarks, but decisively struck at Romney concerning Romneycare, and knocked it out of the park when discussing the demolition of the family.  Overall, his debate performance merited probably a C- or C, at best.

Mitt Romney: Mitt had some zingers throughout the night, but it was a forgettable performance for him.  He has still been unable to overcome Romneycare, a weakness that will continue to hamper him until the nomination is settled.  Additionally, from the way he talked most of the night, one would assume that Romney felt entitled to some kind of gold medal from the Olympics for asking Congress for some money to help finance it.  Finally, he completely avoided the last question, which was how he felt that he was being misperceived in the race.  Like Santorum, Mitt struggled with cleanly delivering his points, often stuttering and grasping for words.  Consequently, I would give him a C-/C as well.

How they all stand

Santorum: He is currently in first place, but I fear that he may have peaked based on his performance tonight.  He has got to win some states in this coming week to help him regain momentum heading into Super Tuesday.  He can do that by continuing to hammer Mitt on Romneycare and Gingrich on his support for individual mandates and climate change. 

Romney: As always, Romney seems primed to regain the lead after another conservative has taken it from him.  Ironically, Mitt likely will benefit most from Newt’s strong performance tonight, as Newt will probably drain support from Santorum and allow Romney to win some more pluralities.  Should he lose Michigan, though, he will be in dire straits.  For Romney, however, his illusions about inevitability and electability have recently been shown to be the mere illusions of the establishment.  He has got to generate some excitement, somehow, to really capture the Republican field.

Gingrich: No one seems to be more comfortable on the downhill slide of the polls than Newt.  It is very likely that our Space Admiral could mount yet another comeback, based solely on his strong debate performance, and the base’s dislike of Romney.  Should he lose Georgia, though, it will be time for him to swallow his pride and bow out.  Honestly, no one benefits more from Newt staying in the race than Romney.  With Newt gone, Santorum could build an insurmountable double-digit lead over Romney and win the nomination. 

Paul: Ron Paul, of course, is not running for the Presidency; he is running to get some of his key points on the Republican Platform at the Convention.  If he can get the Party to endorse ending (or at least auditing) the Fed, ending foreign aid, and restraining our foreign policy, then Paul should hail that as a major victory for his ideology.  Paul has not won one single primary, so it is difficult to imagine that anyone actually believes he has a shot at winning the nomination.  Interestingly, another major victory that he might achieve with his campaign is getting a certain son of his on the Republican ticket… Regardless, Paul is going to stick around, likely until the Convention.  One major question looms though: will he run a third party campaign once he does not win the GOP nomination?  I sincerely hope he does not, since his supporters make up roughly 4 or 5 % of the electorate, and would guarantee Obama’s reelection by voting for their hero. 

Possible Vice Presidential Options

Santorum: Since Rick Santorum is so conservative, his options for an ideological balancer are rather limited.  Mitt Romney, of course, would have to be considered since he is largely perceived as the sole remaining moderate in the race.  Jon Huntsman, however, would probably be a better choice than Romney, since he could appeal to the Ron Paul wing (for his moderate foreign policy and libertarian undertones) as well as the independents and moderate Democrats that the GOP desperately need to win over.  Condoleezza Rice, too, may be an interesting option for Santorum, as she is popular, moderate, smart, and has appeal to a broader range of demographics.  Chris Christie is a possibility, but the outspoken New Jersey governor would be just as good a Vice President as John Adams (in other words, he would hate his job), so he would be reluctant to serve in that capacity.  The only other Republican who could help balance out Santorum’s ticket is Sen. Scott Brown, but I would rather wait to let him recapture his seat in the Senate (and prevent another Kennedy-esque liberal from representing Massachusetts) and put him on a ticket in 4 years (if the Republicans lose to Obama) or 8 years (if they win). 

Romney: Unlike all of the others (save perhaps Paul), Romney has a slew of dynamic options for his running mate.  Being a Northeastern moderate allows Romney to look all over the country for the best possible conservative choice.  Given his recent rise and residency in a crucial swing state, Rick Santorum has quickly risen to the top of many pundits’ list, and he would be a solid choice.  Romney needs someone with a blue collar background to neutralize his reputation as the candidate of the 1% (to borrow the Occupy Movement’s rhetoric), and Santorum could provide that.  Marco Rubio, the popular Latino Republican from Florida, is also a hot name to top the Romney list.  He is young, energetic, and can unite all three factions (neoconservatives, Ronbots, and establishment) of the Republican Party better than just about anybody. Rubio, however, has stated that he does not intend to seek the VP slot.  Bobby Jindal and Allen West would be good choices for similar reasons as Rubio- being popular southern conservatives who could help the GOP some votes from traditionally Democratic demographics.  Rand Paul, like Marco Rubio, is another up and coming Republican star, who may be one of the only figures who would be acceptable to Ron Paul’s cult of followers. Also, Rand Paul has appeal to the Santorum Republicans simply because he is not quite as crazy on foreign policy as his father is.  Like Santorum, Scott Walker, Pat Toomey, and Tim Pawlenty all have the potential to help Romney win key blue-collar, rust belt states that carry some critical Democratic electoral votes.  All of these figures, however, would go better with a firebrand southerner, simply because they are not bearers of excitement.  Each of them is very accomplished, but Romney needs someone with a completely different personality from himself.  Walker, of the three, would be the closest to matching that description, but even he does not really fire up the conservative base.  Toomey’s history on Wall Street would not benefit Romney, at all, and Pawlenty makes Romney sound as exciting as Winston Churchill or Franklin Roosevelt.  Three final figures that I would strongly consider if I was Mitt Romney are Jim DeMint, Mike Huckabee and Rick Scott, because all three of them are popular southern conservatives that can energize the base.  Scott, in particular, would help secure the crucial swing state of Florida.  Considering Romney’s choices, here is how I would rank them: 1) Rubio 2) Jindal 3) West 4) Santorum 5) Rand Paul 6) DeMint 7) Scott 8) Huckabee 9) Walker 10) Toomey 11) Pawlenty. 

Newt Gingrich: For Newt, I would strongly suggest Huntsman or Romney.  In other words, Newt needs someone who is his complete opposite.  Quelling fears about his checkered past, Newt needs someone spotless.  To balance his supposedly “conservative” views, he needs a moderate.  To neutralize his bombastic personality and tendency to spout out absurd ideas, he needs a realistic statesman.  Put simply, Jon Huntsman (and to a lesser extent, Romney) is the anti-Gingrich; the perfect running mate for someone whose personality was well suited for the role of Speaker of the House, but not for the stately role of President of the United States.

Ron Paul: Paul does so much against the conventional political wisdom, I’m not certain I can analyze how he would attack the situation.  Being the rigid ideologue that he is, I do not see him picking someone neoconservative or “establishment”.  Some have suggested Rand Paul, despite the fact that whispers of “dynasty” would never be divorced from discussions of the Paul/Paul campaign.  Judge Andrew Napolitano is another popular figure among Paul’s followers, but I doubt that his presence on the ticket would help Paul win New Jersey.  The best compromise candidate that I can see for a potential running mate is Jon Huntsman, a man who would be acceptable to the Paul campaign, the establishment, and conservatives who do not believe everything Michele Malkin says.  Otherwise, conventional wisdom would say Mitt Romney or Rick Santorum, depending on which faction of the Party Paul would want to most win over. 

It’s Primary Season Folks! The 2012 GOP Primaries officially kick off next week in New Hampshire, but for all intents and purposes, it has already kicked off with the Iowa Caucuses.  Michele Bachmann has already dropped out, Perry and Gingrich are mustering their remaining forces for a last stand in the South, and the others have started turning on each other.  Here, now, we have a clearer picture than ever of who is really in the top tier and who is likely to be the nominee in this fractured party.  With that in mind, let us look at how each of them stands right now.

Rick Santorum

            Strengths: With Bachmann bowing out, and Perry and Gingrich down to their last days in the race, the neoconservative/religious right finally has a candidate that they can unite behind.  His victory in Iowa has finally propelled him into the spotlight, and he can pose a major threat to Mitt Romney by uniting the Republican base against him.  Santorum’s strengths are his appeal to the neoconservative foreign policy hawks, social conservatives, and blue collar workers.  Whereas Romney has “corporate fat cat” written all over him (at least in the minds of American blue collar workers) and Paul is so gung-ho on free trade that he seems to be in support of shipping out American jobs, Santorum has won elections in union-heavy districts by actively supporting American manufacturing.  If any candidate has the ability to take away Democratic votes for economic and job-creating reasons (in an election dominated by those concerns), it has to be Rick Santorum.

            Weaknesses: Basically, one needs to only Google “Rick Santorum” to see his biggest problem.  Opposition to his stance on gay-related issues is legion, as is opposition to his stance on abortion (such as the shameless criticism of Alan Colmes regarding Santorum’s handling of the death of his still born son).  His hyper-interventionist foreign policy may also be detrimental to winning an election in a time when many Americans are weary of war, but at the same time, is also helpful to winning votes from the majority of Republicans who strongly oppose the “Blame America First” mentality of Cong. Paul.  (Paul, of course, charges that Santorum is somehow racist for his views about Iran, engaging in the same smearing tactics that he and his supporters decry with regards to the questionable newspaper columns).  His biggest weakness of all, however, is that he just seems like too much of a nice guy to win a national election against a shark like Obama. 

Mitt Romney

            Strengths: Romney really benefited from the Iowa Caucuses.  He showed that he can win (however narrowly) in a socially conservative state in a contest he was supposed to lose.  As a result of this, and his expected double-digit victory in New Hampshire, Romney is clearly the frontrunner at this point, and represents the Bob Dole-John McCain wing of the party. Romney represents the private sector better than any other candidate, and has shown that he might have enough appeal to Northeastern Liberals to pull some key votes away from the Obama campaign.  At this point, it is inconceivable that Romney will not be on the ticket (unless Huntsman pulls off a New Hampshire surprise and goes on to win the nomination).  Romney also comes across as more level-headed and realistic than either Santorum or Paul, a key aspect that could factor heavily in his favor and make independents and moderate liberals more willing to vote in his favor than Obama’s.  Finally, Romney seems like a candidate that has the ability to get people to settle for him.  He doesn’t have the fanatic support that Paul or Obama has, but has enough widespread appeal that conservatives, moderates, and liberals are willing to settle (as SNL said, “nothing says you are settling like Mitt Romney”).  In such a weak GOP field, that is a winning quality. Romney seems primed to win New Hampshire, and could seal the nomination with victories in Florida and South Carolina. 

            Weaknesses: Two words; “flip” and “flop.”  Santorum and Paul are consistent ideologues, but Romney has the same weakness that John Kerry had in ’04, he takes whatever positions will win the race.  In a sense, he is the quintessential politician.  His most glaring case of flip-flopping was with Romneycare, but also with his stances on abortion and gay rights. He also sometimes comes across as an “elitist,” like with his $10,000 bet with Rick Perry in the one debate.  Additionally, although he has enough widespread appeal to make people settle for him, he does not bring a great deal of enthusiasm with his supporters.  Indeed, support for Romney is always lukewarm.  Should he win the nomination, many Republicans will campaign against Obama, but not necessarily in strong favor of Romney

Ron Paul

            Strengths: No candidate has such an energized base of supporters as Cong. Paul.  No other candidate has a small (albeit growing) group of followers that would brave blizzards, volcanoes, tornadoes, and hurricanes (even all at the same time) as Dr. Paul.  That said, his greatest strengths are his organization skills, appeal to the Far Left, leftover hippie generation doves, and his consistency.  In the general election, he may be able to steal some votes from Obama from pacifists, gay rights activists, and marijuana rights activists, all of which have been uncontested bulwarks of the Democratic Party since the days of Franklin Roosevelt.  Although one many not agree with Dr. Paul on everything, one must admit that his stances never change because of prevailing political winds.  Should Paul get the nomination, no candidate will have people working for him harder than they will work for Paul.

            Weaknesses: His supporters are a major strength for him, but they are also a huge liability.  Their support is so fanatical, that it reaches almost totalitarian levels, and his supporters have already started to go rogue and harm his campaign, as with the recent ad that some made against Jon Huntsman, calling him a “Manchurian Candidate” because of his service as Ambassador to China and his adoption of Chinese babies.  Even worse, some of these are prone to treat any other candidate, or person who disagrees with them in the slightest, as representing absolute evil. Beyond his supporters, though, Paul has several other major obstacles to overcome.  Chief among these obstacles is Paul, himself.  He is a weak debater, prone to scowl throughout the debates and go off on semi-conspiratorial rants that always make him look bad.  Paul’s campaign is not optimistic, but comes across as being bred from anger (much like Carl Paladino’s gubernatorial campaign in New York).  Also, he will have more difficulty than either Romney or Santorum in securing up the main Republican base- the religious right neoconservatives.  Paul represents the paleoconservative, libertarian wing of the Party, which is far less prominent than the other two wings.  He holds seemingly contradictory stances on abortion, gay rights, and immigration, which may not sit well with a large portion of social conservatives (not to mention his pro-marijuana stance).  Finally, he will need to be able to surmount the fact that any thinking person would realize that his plans to downsize the government are impossible.  Cutting one major bureaucratic department would be a defining achievement of an administration, cutting 5 would require totalitarian powers.  Using the response to Governor Walker’s mere stripping of collective bargaining rights from public sector employees as a litmus test, it is laughable to think that Paul could somehow gut the jobs of thousands of people, even if he reduces his own salary to 1/10 of what it would otherwise be.  This is sad, but it is true.  Paul would not have the power to accomplish what he promises, and it would be foolish to think otherwise.

Jon Huntsman

            Strengths: Huntsman is a true conservative on nearly every issue, but does not have the “crazy” label attached to him, like Santorum, Paul, and Perry all do.  He has extensive foreign policy experience, especially with China, and has a more reasonable foreign policy than Paul or Santorum, who represent the extremes of both ends of the spectrum.  Huntsman has an intellectual aura about him, something that will appeal to independents and many Democrats, and is willing to break with the GOP on issues like climate change (unfortunately) and civil unions for gay couples (something that could really help him win votes from Democrats).  He has an impeccable character, mild manners, and is level-headed.  An examination of his record shows that he is 100% Pro-Life, Pro-Second Amendment, and is completely laissez-faire with regards to the economy.  In short, accurate representation of his record would help him sway the Republican base (much more than either Romney or Paul), yet would also have enough appeal to the moderates and left that he could beat Barack Obama.

            Weaknesses: For some reason, his service as Ambassador to China has counted as a strike against him ever since declaring his campaign.  Instead of it being a significant achievement (and representation of his Washingtonian willingness to transcend politics in favor of service to the nation), many conservatives have been led to believe that it somehow means that he is a political lackey of President Obama.  His other weaknesses are more practical: he simply has a lack of finances, name recognition, and enthusiasm (although that will change if he stays in the race beyond New Hampshire and the Huntsman Daughters become more prominent).  Like Santorum, Huntsman may not be enough of a fighter to defeat a shark like Obama, as he promised a civil campaign when he started, and he has maintained it throughout the nomination process.  The only chinks in his ideological armor are simply his support for equal rights for gay couples (in the form of civil unions) and taking a more so-called “Pro-Science” stance regarding climate change and evolution.  Should he win the nomination, his support would be warmer than support for Romney (from the base of the party), but those two stances may make some less willing to back him.  The only way he would be able to fight this weakness would be by nominating either Rick Santorum, Allen West, Jim DeMint, Rand Paul, or some other Republican that is a social conservative in every sense as his Vice President.

Newt Gingrich:

            Strengths: He still has some appeal to social, fiscal, and foreign policy conservatives, as well as wannabe intellectuals.  He still has some money to spend from his moment in the spotlight, and he is angry.  Gingrich is more or less a cornered and wounded animal, and has nothing to lose by going on the full scale offensive against Mitt Romney.  No one is happier about this fact than Rick Santorum.

            Weaknesses: Newt’s weaknesses are legion.  He still has his checkered personal past to contend with, an inconsistent record on a variety of issues, and an unfavorable overall reputation.  Newt’s spotlight moment as the anti-Romney is over, but he is staking it all on the southern states.  I do not see him returning to the top tier of candidates, but he’ll stick around for a couple more weeks.

Rick Perry

            Strengths: Honestly, the only reason I can see for Perry to stick around is his appeal to southern voters.  Should something happen with Santorum, some may look at Perry again out of desperation.  His only strength is that he still has a considerable war chest to spend.

            Weaknesses: Forgetfulness, weak debating skills, need I go on? Perry is done. 

New Hampshire Predictions

Mitt Romney- New Hampshire is tailor-made for Romney, a Northeastern moderate with a successful record as a governor of a neighboring state.  His New Hampshire victory, however, will only be complete if he destroys Jon Huntsman and Ron Paul.  Anything less than a double-digit victory in New Hampshire would have to be viewed as a cause for concern in the Romney camp. 

Jon Huntsman- Living in New Hampshire throughout the campaigning process has to pay extraordinary dividends for Governor Huntsman, or else he is done.  He does not have to win New Hampshire, but anything less than third is a lethal blow to his campaign.  I think he can post a strong second, much like Santorum in New Hampshire, and possibly gain some more national exposure.  The ideal scenario for him would be to finish within 10% of Romney- a finish that could send shockwaves throughout the Republican Party.  After all, he is a much better compromise candidate than Romney.

Ron Paul- He won’t win New Hampshire, but should finish in second or third. In his place, I would concentrate more on the South, where people are more uncertain about their votes.  No matter how he finishes in New Hampshire, Paul will be around until the Convention. 

Rick Santorum- He should finish ahead of the other social conservatives, but New Hampshire is not Iowa.  Florida and South Carolina promise better results than the Granite State.  If he can pass Paul, and maybe even Huntsman, then New Hampshire is a victory for him.
Newt Gingrich- Although he really isn’t contesting New Hampshire, Newt has more appeal to this state than Perry.  He will finish in 5^th, and hope for better luck in Dixie.

Rick Perry- Perry has also given up on New Hampshire, and it would be a surprise to see him finish in anything but dead last. 

Bottom Line

            The contest is not over yet, but Mitt Romney has the inside track to be the nominee.  Victories in New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Florida will all but end the competition for the nomination.  If Santorum is able to mop up the votes from Gingrich, Perry, and Bachmann, he could pose a strong challenge, especially if he wins the southern contests.  Unlike Cain and the others, Santorum has the advantage of rising at the time when other social conservatives drop out.  He also has the advantage of running in a year when the Republican Party is more fractured than ever before.  Ron Paul staying in the race only helps out Santorum by preventing Romney from getting a clear majority, but also provides Romney with a “sparring partner” of sorts to prepare him for debating Obama.  Paul will continue to stay in the race, probably until the convention, and should not be ignored (especially since it will only cause his worker bees to buzz louder).  Huntsman is the lone remaining dark horse, but time is no longer on his side in the Granite State.  

Tonight’s debate sure was an entertaining one: Herman Cain was finally put in the spotlight as a new top-tier candidate, and he touted his 9-9-9 plan repeatedly.  Rick Perry’s ship continued to sink, and Mitt Romney was also caught in the crossfire.  Here is a quick reaction to each of the candidates.

Mitt Romney: Romney did what he needed to do tonight.  Especially with the final pronouncement of Chris Christie’s intentions not to run next year, Romney kept his cool and did what he needed to in order to secure the moderate wing of the GOP.  No glaring mistakes, but no knockout punches either.  As the primaries draw closer, he will have to go on the offensive more, but he has been playing solid defense by avoiding costly mistakes.

Rick Perry: Perry’s ineptitude at debating has, once again, failed to revive his collapsing campaign.  If the Texan hopes to turn around his faltering campaign, he will have to do better than he did tonight in future debates.  Mediocre answers and tactics in debates are generally not elements that lead to a successful campaign for the nomination.

Herman Cain: Cain’s sudden ascension to the top tier of the race has, admittedly, surprised me greatly.  That said, he would easily have been declared the winner of tonight’s debate, save for one glaring mistake; picking Alan Greenspan as the greatest of the Fed Chairmen.  As Ron Paul pointed out, Greenspan created bubbles that, of course, collapsed and resulted in the problems we have faced the last two years.  Other than that, he effectively touted his 9-9-9 Plan, which is political genius.  Simple, and effective, it resonates with voters.  However, picking Alan Greenspan was a mistake, plain and simple.

Ron Paul: Ron Paul, of course, was Ron Paul.  I am not a major Ron Paul fan (again, his foreign policy scares me), but even I was somewhat offended by the lack of questions directed at him.  However, he did use his allotted time effectively- especially his scathing rebuttal of Herman Cain’s choice of Alan Greenspan.  He did what he could with the time that was given to him, but I doubt that it was enough to really gain any new followers. 

Newt Gingrich: Honestly, if Newt did not have all of the skeletons in his closet, he would probably be the front runner right now.  He is an excellent debater with real ideas- even if he is misguided on issues like climate change.  Tonight, as in every other debate I have seen, Newt effectively used his limited amount of time and produced some great one-liners.  Unfortunately for him, however, his personal skeletons are essentially insurmountable, and his campaign seems more like an attempt to keep his name relevant than a serious run at the presidency.

Michele Bachmann: Her most memorable moment of the night was saying that Herman Cain’s flat tax plan of 9-9-9 should be turned upside down.  This was not a good night for her, far removed from the debate in Iowa that catapulted her to the front.  Her fading campaign really needs a boost, and this debate really did not provide that boost.

Rick Santorum: In my opinion, Santorum was easily the best debater of the night- when given the opportunity.  He was direct, clear, and on the attack.  Additionally, he hit a bull’s-eye by pointing out the role of family in poverty; a point that had been completely ignored during the debate until that point (which then prompted Michele Bachmann to use her kindergarten teacher voice to talk about her family and belief in family).  You have to give Santorum credit- he has been very good at staying relevant.

Jon Huntsman: Without question, Huntsman had the best zingers of the night.  The comment of D.C. being the “gas capital of the United States”, especially, was pure brilliance.  Like Santorum, Gingrich, and Paul, he really did not have too many opportunities to speak, but made the most of those opportunities.  He was calm, cool, and collected- definitely continuing to improve his debating skills.

Conclusion: Of the front runners, Romney was probably the winner (much as it pains me to admit this).  Cain was entertaining, but made a critical mistake with his praise of Alan Greenspan.  Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, Rick Santorum, and Jon Huntsman all had great performances tonight, especially given the time constraints placed upon them (and honestly, there really is not too much time that can spent on marginal candidates in an 8-person debate).  Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry were definitely the losers tonight.