Romney shines, Perry disappoints, Cain not quite ready for prime time

I sat and watched the eighth Republican presidential debate on Tuesday evening. While I thought it was highly entertaining television, I was disappointed that the debate did little to settle the question of who is the best person to oppose Obama in 2012. Let's take a look at the debate candidate by candidate:
1. Mitt Romney: Romney continues to be the class of the Republican field. He is the only candidate who has previous experience running, and in every debate I've seen, he has been by far the most prepared and looke the most presidential. Last night, I thought he did a very good job of fending off the charges leveled at him by his opponents. His explanations made sense. He still strikes me as the most moderate of the candidates. My major concern with him remains his Mormon faith. I'm still not convinced that he can win over the Religious Right that controls his party. Nor am I convinced that he can win over voters, many of whom have limited understanding of his Mormon faith. Still, another strong performance.
2. Rick Perry: The more of Perry I see, the more I don't like. Last night, he came across as a petulant child. Every time he was challenged, he attempted to talk over his challenger and refused to let them speak. Add to that his extreme positions (such as defunding the United Nations) and his refusal to formally apologize to Romney for one of his supporters calling Mormonism "a cult," and it seems clear that he is the GOP's worst nightmare and Obama's dream opponent in 2012. Perry has an extremely unlikable personality. If, by some miracle, he becomes the nominee, he would easily be marginalized as an extremist, and would almost guarantee another four years of Obama.
3. Herman Cain: Cain has enjoyed a meteoric rise in the polls in recent weeks, so last night, I was paying particular attention to what he said. What I saw didn't impress me.
Cain is, without a doubt, a true American success story. He is a hugely successful businessman with a great backstory, having beaten stage 4 liver and colon cancer. Americans have always loved an underdog. And Cain is impressive, but from what I saw, he's not quite ready for prime time ... yet.
Right off the bat, Cain was attacked for his "9-9-9" tax plan that calls for a 9 percent income tax, a 9 percent sales tax and a 9 percent corporate tax. This was a chance to set himself apart, to sell his plan directly to the American people. Yet, he failed to have a clear explanation for why his plan is better than the current system. Every time he was challenged on the plan, he responded that people were comparing "apples and oranges." He said his opponents, and Americans, simply didn't understand it. And he urged Americans to do their own math and to study his campaign's analysis. That's hardly the compelling sales pitch needed to convince Americans to scrap the current system.
Then there's his stance on negotiating with terrorists. In a classic Al Gore "flip-flop," he told Wolf Blitzer just hours before the debate that he would be open to the tactic. Then, at the debate, he backpedaled fiercely and said that he never said that, and that he was against the idea. Even when faced with video evidence of what he said after the debate, the best he could say was that he "misspoke" and "didn't understand the question." That's a rookie mistake by a rookie politician.
Personally, I think Cain would make a great Cabinet secretary. He might even make a formidable vice presidential pick. But what became clear last night is that he's not quite ready for the top job.
4. Michele Bachmann: Last night proved once and for all that Bachmann is not a serious candidate, and that her candidacy is little more than an exercise in ego. Bachmann spent a large part of the night fighting for camera time. Every time she was given a chance to speak, she either didn't answer the question directly or had little of substance to say. I guess this is hardly surprising, considering she has hardly distinguished herself after five years in the House. I doubt she makes the next debate.
5. Ron Paul: It's only too bad that Paul, a longtime Congressman from Texas, makes so much sense. It almost guarantees that he has no shot at winning the nomination. Paul wasn't given a lot of time to speak last night. When he did, I thought he made more sense than just about anyone up there except for Romney. Paul's problem is that he's a Libertarian. And while he enjoys a solid base of support, I don't think America is ready for her first Libertarian president. My prediction is that he'll be gone by next month's debate.
6. Rick Santorum: Santorum is a fringe candidate at best. He did have one brilliant moment last night in talking about whether people should judge candidates based on their religious beliefs. I totally agreed that it is fair to judge candidates on their morals, but not on their views about salvation. Other than that, it was a fairly quiet debate for Santorum, and I saw of little of substance.
7. Newt Gingrich: The former Speaker of the House had a fairly strong showing here. As one analyst said, he came across as "the elder statesman" of the group. I still think Gingrich is stuck in the past, circa 1994. He has never moved on from his glory days of 1994, when he engineered the Republican Revolution. He's still quoting Reagan and talking about a "21st Century Contract with America." I have heard very little new from Gingrich. Add to that his past ethics problems, and his affair that was exposed at the height of the Monica Lewinsky impeachment scandal, and I believe he is damaged goods. Gingrich makes for an interesting candidate, but Republicans would make a terrible mistake by making him their nominee.