As the old saying goes, ‘one should never look a gift horse in the mouth.’ However clumsily accomplished, this fifth GOP debate gifted the Republican Party an air of preeminence in relation to the issues on hand. After the Presidential scheduling snafu resulting in the leader of the Democrat party bowing to the beforehand scheduled Republican debate, there was an air of anticipation surrounding this event.
On top of this publicity, was the excitement surrounding the entry of the Texas Governor Rick Perry into the presidential race. The interactions between the candidates and Perry did not disappoint. In short, this was the Rick Perry v. Mitt Romney debate. Most of the questions were in reference to something Rick Perry said, thought, wrote or signed. Rick Perry took the barrage of questions about his governorship of Texas and his stance on national issues with gusto and resorted only a few instances to equivocation. Mitt Romney hit back with a few effective responses and rebuttals to attacks, but he was not the shiny new toy in the romper room. That prize went to Perry where almost every candidate took an opportunity to attack his credibility as the leader of a state that has faired better than almost all others in the union, for which Perry happily assigns to his governance. Michele Bachman was largely ignored, but perkily consistent. Ron Paul was…Ron Paul. He is the ed
ucated uncle who makes as much sense as anyone else, but has read one too many Jim Marrs books and it shows. Herman Cain was resourceful in his monopoly of frankness, but we’ve all heard the promises to reform the tax code. Rick Santorum sent out a series of complete and inspiring answers to questions, that is when he was asked a question. Newt Gingrich served as the cheerleader of the Republican Party, preferring to separate himself from the current administration than criticize his fellow candidates.
The stand out was John Hunstman. Not only did he distance himself from traditional conservatism, but he practically called them all rubes by cautioning them to stop “running from science” on the subject of global warming, as to avoid losing the party’s validity. Seems to me that the only validity that will be lost by such statements is his with the base of the Republican Party. Further solidifying his role as the liberal Democrat running with an “R” beside his name, Huntsman gifted us with this utterance, ““By making comments that basically don’t reflect the reality… we turn people off,” Huntsman added. He has chosen to “turn off” 60% or more of the Republican base. Hunstman stated, “We can’t run from science.” Come primary time, he will want to run back to the conservative base.
Overall, the debate was lively and spirited. The idea that the Republicans have a weak field is a flat out lie. We shall soon see if Obama can stimulate a voter rebellion in ’12 that will place one aforementioned candidate in the White House.
Rebekah Ward
No comments:
Post a Comment