Normally I do a report card for the candidate’s debate performances, but as this race has progressed I think we’re to the point that we can begin looking at the thesis statements of these candidates and ask them to defend it, rather than looking for how skillfully they regurgitate talking points. If I had to declare a winner I would not hesitate to say Mitt Romney ran away with this one, but I think it was a good night for other candidates for reasons I’ll outline below.

Rick Santorum

Rick Santorum really made an effort to stand out from the pack tonight. His language was fiery, his voice was strong and he sounded like he was speaking with conviction, however overall I think Rick’s problem is he loses his audience about half way through what he is saying. He starts to drone on and on and the intensity in his voice starts to wane as he thinks of different ways to make his point. Someone should tell him that you have the time, but you don’t have to take all of it if you’ve said what you need to say.

Where Rick sounds good is on his firm stances regarding foreign policy. While I don’t personally agree with some of his tough talk, you don’t get the sense that he is someone that would run from a fight when push came to shove. Unfortunately, as he demonstrated tonight, his resolution to stand his ground becomes a weakness when he doesn’t have all the facts straight but insists that they are actually fact.

To Santorum’s credit, he has no problem calling it like he sees it and will firmly defend his position until his last breath. Unfortunately, when you’re wrong, that makes you really wrong.

Ron Paul

I thought Ron Paul actually had a really good night. He was funny, n point (mostly) and showed us a little more playful side of himself which generally makes him more endearing.

One thing I have heard repeated when discussing Ron Paul’s debate performances is that no matter what question you ask him, his answers will be the same. It’s as if each minute he is given will be his last so he tries to cram as much into that minute as he possibly can. I don’t really blame him, prior to the last few debates it was clear that he was not being given his “fair share” of questions.

Where Ron Paul did well tonight was in scaling back his sense of urgency in his responses and making them pertinent to the questions he was asked. He didn’t do this perfectly but it did appear that he was making the effort. Specifically I think Paul did a great job taking advantage of the Freddie & Fannie back and forth by asserting that he warned of this problem years ago when no one else was paying attention. It gave him some credibility I think he both needs and deserves.

Do I think Ron Paul is going to run away with this thing? Absolutely not, but would we be wise to pay him more respect than we do? Without a doubt.

Mitt Romney

The clear winner tonight was Mitt. He had a strong showing Monday night when he cornered Newt on his ties to Freddie and Fannie and neutralized his abilities to deflect and redirect. CNN knew how to get the brawl going and allowed Mitt the opportunity to respond to Newt’s allegation that he was “the most anti-immigration candidate”. Willfully taking the bait Mitt turned on Newt and immediately put him on the defensive. It was particularly interesting because this is something Newt likes to be able to do to his opponents first.

It didn’t stop there. Gingrich, in an attempt to regain the upper hand, went after Romney for having stocks in Freddie and Fannie. Mitt quietly waited for Newt to finish and responded by taking Newt back to school. He explained that it was a blind trust, that investments had been diversified and that he didn’t own any stocks. Mitt could have taken it a step further by saying anyone with a 401K will find they have similar investments but he stopped short. Romney was clear, precise and carried a tinge of condescension no doubt giving the speaker a taste of his own medicine. “We don’t have a problem with 11 million illegal grandma’s” and “we needed a whistle blower not a horn tooter” will no doubt become social media gold in a myriad of creative ways.

Romney also said something tonight I thought was very important, and it is something none of the other candidates are saying. Romney mentioned that while unemployment in Florida is above 9%, the real unemployment numbers are at around 18%. He is rejecting the narrative of the media that the economy is getting better and is refusing to do anything but make Barrack Obama own the failures of his “wing-it” presidency and lack of leadership. By subduing Newt and making it about Obama, Romney has cemented himself as the only real contender for the presidency.

Newt Gingrich

It’s been a bad couple of debates for Newt. After getting it handed to him Monday night, Newt made the rounds on tv and radio saying things about Romney that he was unable to defend tonight when confronted with them. He made a few attempts early on to take Mitt back down a notch and not let him get the upper hand, but was unsuccessful.

After being handled by Mitt, Newt (perhaps in an act of self-preservation) became much less combative and began deferring to just about everyone else on the stage. There was little that really strengthened his case for being the most conservative. In fact, his advocacy for the lunar colony was shot down by every other candidate as being too expensive and a totally misplaced priority.

While I respect all the candidates who are and have been in this race, I think the time for games and petty politics is over. The sooner we can declare our nominee the sooner the republican party can put itself back together and hopefully present a united front against the 1 Billion dollar Obama smear machine that will be seeking to destroy us. Romney is absolutely right; this fight is for the soul of America. Will we be a European style socialist state, or will we restore America to her former glory? For those of us who support Mitt Romney, the choice has been clear for quite some time.

With Ron Paul gaining in the polls, it seems appropriate to give him the credit that the mainstream media wants to withhold. By Romney’s own admission, Ron Paul’s ground game and ability to inspire his supporters is to be respected; I would even say admired.

There has been a lot of talk about Paul’s foreign policy and whether or not it represents the attitude of the GOP base, but I would like to lay that issue aside for a moment and speak to his domestic economic policy and what I believe it will mean for America.

Few politicians today have been as consistent, outspoken, or controversial as Ron Paul. His “Plan to Restore America” lays out bold cuts to federal spending, regulation, and oversight and is definitely resonating with potential voters especially when we consider how much Obama has increased federal spending since taking office. More and more people seem to be waking up to the fact that we are well on our way to financial and social ruin, due to a runaway government.

Voters might see in Ron Paul a real voice of change, shouting less government and more personal responsibility. No one doubts Ron Paul’s sincerity when he talks about tackling our financial woes and the preservation of civil liberties. But, is America stable enough to withstand the drastic measures of Ron Paul? If conservatives are eager to reclaim government and place it back into the hands of the people, we need to stop the bleeding first.

In the current political climate, I believe Mitt Romney makes the transition to true Constitutionalism more feasible and with less collateral damage.

Mitt Romney brings to the American table a lifetime of experience gained in the economy. As he has stated, he understands why businesses come and why they go. He understands the regulatory burdens leveled by federal institutions like the EPA, and is no stranger to the kinds of taxes that punish success in this country. He brings experience in working with a potentially uncooperative body of legislators and has a track record of still being able to get things done despite the opposition. He has the reputation of a “turnaround artist” for a reason. It is an art and not just anyone can do what he does. He has the unique ability to identify inconsistencies and errors within a system, eliminate them, and implement more efficient methods, which lift that system’s overall functionality and output.

Obama has spent the last 3 years eliminating the middle class. People on the bottom have no hope to move up and are left to demonize those who have benefited from a crony-capitalist system. Unemployment is up, government spending is up, and more and more people are finding themselves in need of government assistance just to keep the heat on. CLICK HERE TO CONTINUE READING

Let me preface by saying with only a few momentary exceptions, this was probably one of the best performances from each of the candidates. I felt that each candidate took seriously the need to bring their “A” game to this debate. Some performed better than others, but overall I think we got a pretty good look at our candidates. If you were tuning into these debates for the first time, I think you could walk away fairly confident that you understood the essence of the next President of the United States.

It is appropriate that this debate took place during finals week for so many college students, and in keeping with that spirit I have graded each candidate’s final performance as we head into the holiday break and the Iowa Caucus.

I will be the first to admit that these grades come with a bias, but I made a serious effort to be fair by weighing what question the moderator asked and how well the candidates answered those questions. I also considered how effectively a candidate set themselves apart from the others as well as how clearly they detailed those positions.

The Grades:

Mitt Romney—————- A
Michele Bachmann——— B
Ron Paul——————– B
Rick Perry—————— C
Newt Gingrich————- C
Rick Santorum————- C
Jon Huntsman————- D+

CLICK HERE TO READ THE FULL ANALYSIS

When you’re down 14 points behind the nearest candidate, skipping debates probably isn’t in your best interest, yet that’s what the Perry camp seems to be flirting with.

Part of me would like to think they’re just testing the public’s reaction to this move (not unlike what they’ve done with Mitt and Mormonism) and to perhaps ascertain who their constituents really are.

The other part of me is wondering why Rick Perry would forfeit the opportunity to make the case for his presidency directly to the American people.

I’ve narrowed it down to three possibilities:

First, Rick Perry doesn’t actually have a plan of his own. Perry’s recent jobs plan contains many of the same solutions that Mitt Romney’s plan does. Since Mitt’s plan has been available to everyone for 7 weeks prior to Perry’s, one could argue that perhaps Perry took Mitt’s plan, repackaged it and is now calling it his own. This creates a dilemma for Perry since promoting his solutions will only lend credibility to the case Romney has been making for nearly two months. It does nothing to set Rick Perry apart from Romney.

The second possibility I’ve considered is that Rick Perry simply isn’t buying what he is selling. The flat tax option in Perry’s recently released plan was a carrot dangled above his falling poll numbers. Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 tax plan stole Perry’s thunder, but many criticized it for adding a new tax or not going far enough with a flat tax. Perry must have figured he could do us one better and released his half-baked flat tax option that will undoubtedly deflate under even the softest scrutiny. It does nothing to the current tax system and is an opt-in to a higher tax bracket than 90% of the public currently belongs to. There is no way Perry can take the stage and defend it with the same conviction behind his hatred of cancer or heartfelt need to subsidize the education of illegal immigrants.

Third, Rick Perry is the schoolyard bully. We all know this guy. Because of the aforementioned reasons Perry doesn’t have confidence to win in a fair fight. He must remove himself from a situation where there are too many variables beyond his control. He obviously needs time to formulate responses and a safe place from which to deliver cheap shots. Perry is no stranger to smear tactics and has already delivered some pretty reckless videos attacking Mitt Romney. This is where a bully is comfortable in confrontation: on his turf and under his terms. He is retreating to a forum with less accountability and little opportunity for rebuttal. Just ask Bill White, former Texas gubernatorial candidate who ran against Perry in 2010. Perry refused to share the stage with Bill and ran a series of television and radio ads against him calling him everything but a pinko-commie (he may have actually said that too).

Rick Perry must think the GOP voters are stupid if he expects to retreat from the issues, take cheap shots at the front runners and still manage to clinch the nomination. We have already had three years of the most insulting, condescending, arrogant president in American history and are ready to be treated with a little more respect. Perry’s scorched earth policy does nothing to unite or inspire the base, improve his own image, or further the national dialog concerning real solutions to real problems.

You’re either all in, or its time to fold, Rick.

-Adam E.


BONUS: Do we really want Rick Perry to be the guy that represents our party, head-to-head in a debate against Barack Obama?!

In reading Mitt Romney’s jobs plan, and Rick Perry’s plan side by side, some very obvious similarities emerge. They both call for reduction in capital gains tax, corporate tax, elimination of the death tax, repatriation of American dollars, etc. The fact that Rick Perry’s plan came 7 weeks after Romney’s plan was presented give some Romney folks the sneaking suspicion that Perry crafted his plans based on Romney’s plan. This is politics and not outside the realm of possibilities, but I’ll give Perry a pass on this one because there are changes that need to be made regardless of who said it first.

My major beef with Perry’s plan is his flat-tax component.

The first thing that jumps out with Rick Perry’s tax plan is that it is a flat tax on income. When announcing his plan, Perry held up a postcard and declared that was all you would have to send in to file your taxes. Sounds great, especially to those of us who favor a flat tax, but with Rick Perry things aren’t always what they seem.

You don’t have to look very far before it becomes clear that Perry’s tax plan does nothing to the current tax system, except where Mitt Romney’s plan has already addressed needs for change (capital gains, territorial tax, etc). The so-called “flat-tax” that Perry is pushing is an optional system. If you want to pay 20% of your income you’re welcome to via the “Perry Postcard”, or you can continue paying the rate you’re paying now. How does this plan simplify the current tax code? At least Herman Cain calls for doing away with the entire tax structure before laying a new system on us but Perry’s is an additional tax system. Will it require additional IRS agents and enforcements? What about the 47% of us who don’t pay taxes, why would we opt in? While Perry makes sure we understand that the current tax code contains more words than the Holy Bible, Atlas Shrugged and War and Peace combined, he evidently would like to throw in Stephen King’s The Stand just for good measure.

I have to wonder if Perry included the half-baked flat-tax plan simply to siphon off some of Cain’s support and regain some much needed momentum. We have been promised the moon by Obama, we don’t need another president who has no intention of bringing about real change to Washington.


-Adam Ebberts