Last night’s CNN GOP debate in Nevada
|
|
Herman Cain is a man with a plan, and a man with a problem, and they both have the same name: 9-9-9. Cain’s tax reform plan distinguishes him from the rest of the GOP field, and is the centerpiece of his strategy for revitalizing the U.S. economy. Making it the central element of his candidacy makes sense because no plan so radical would have any chance of getting through Congress unless a president were elected with the specific mandate to enact it. The “9-9-9″ plan has a lot to recommend it, but I was disappointed during the debate last week when Cain left a number of criticisms of it by other candidates hanging in the air, and during last night’s debate he was little better at defending it. Saying, “Go to my website and read the plan” is not sufficient when withering charges are leveled against it. I could defend it better than he did last night (although I’m not endorsing it per se) and Chris Chocola of the Club for Growth has made a good defense of it, but it’s pointless for others to try and make a strong case for it if Cain himself is not going to do so in a debate. Some people like Herman Cain but don’t like his tax plan; unfortunately, he doesn’t really exist without his tax plan. He can’t dispose of it. If in fact it has some of the more serious flaws that some have suggested, and needs retooling, then he ought to retool it, like, yesterday. Combine this problem with repeated stumbles on foreign policy and needing to backtrack on answers, and it looks like Cain has reached the mountaintop only to slip over the other side. Yet, he still has one major thing on his side: he is not a member of the political class, and that may yet cover up a multitude of other sins. But a substantial performance improvement is needed from him.
Rick Perry was a little more energized last night, although I think the time he spent knocking Romney for hiring illegal immigrants was unproductive and came across petty. Perry talked domestic energy resources again, which is the basis of his plan to boost jobs and the economy, but allowed Romney to get away with saying that he agreed with Perry on these issues of gas, oil and coal. That would have been the perfect juncture to point out that in fact Romney has been clear that he believes in anthropogenic global warming, and there’s no chance that a Mitt Romney energy policy would be anywhere near as aggressive as Perry’s. Perry had a few good moments which will remind people that he continues to have a whole lot going for him, but almost flushed it with a terribly garbled answer on the issue of faith in politics, and Romney’s status as a Mormon. The issue, fortunately, is so insignificant that his lousy answer doesn’t much matter.
Mitt Romney was Mitt Romney, something which he’s very good at being. I think he again benefited—if perversely—by being the target of so many snipes by other candidates. Each time, he was able to take his 30 seconds to respond, and so held the floor for far more time than anyone else. It’s not generally a great thing to be defending yourself all the time, but Romney is very good at it, and very good at explaining things that a lot of voters have problems with. Whether his explanations are worth a bent nickel or not is anyone’s guess. But he continues to present this kind of impervious and smooth sense of inevitability, which is his strongest asset.
I give the edge to Rick Perry to re-emerge as the alternative to Romney, unless Cain surprises with a significant strengthening of his candidacy. If neither of those assert themselves successfully, then look for Newt Gingrich to rise to the top tier. His debate performances are simply masterful, both in tone and substance, and sooner or later people may actually want to vote for the guy who continues to impress them so much. If so, what a victory for positive campaigning. Already, in fact, his position in the polls, considering all the baggage he carries, is a tribute to his attitude and perspective.
Bachmann continues to give some very strong answers now and then, but I don’t see her getting back to anywhere like where she once was in popularity. Without wanting to use up too much ink or belabor anything, I think people sense that there’s just something not quite right. And her lack of executive experience is a big factor.
Rick Santorum should have been a lot more like Jon Huntsman last night: absent. He only injects gratuitious negativity in his bid to attract attention. He made some points last night aimed at social conservatives, which should be his forté, but he made them badly and he appears utterly out of place in this election cycle. He continues to cite his success in winning election in a blue state (PA), when everyone knows that he in fact lost his last election there. Isn’t there someone with influence who can get him to go away?
|
|
Ron Paul has had a very good run this time but I think his position has now peaked. Nevertheless, he continues to be a useful presence at the debates.
I believe the next debate is November 9th in Michigan on CNBC (although that is strangely what I thought last time). Perry and Cain in particular have a lot of work to do in the meantime.
