Straw Poll

As predicted, the Straw Poll broke Pawlenty. Beyond that, nothing should really be taken away from it. As an Iowa native, Bachmann always had a big advantage. Her advantage will be less in the Caucus but still noteworthy. It is also interesting that Perry, as a write-in candidate who didn't participate in the recent debate, received more votes than Romney, who was on the ballot and acquitted himself well in the debate.

The conventional wisdom has already narrowed the field down to Romney and Perry. Both have the fund-raising power that the other candidates lack. Both have executive experience, unlike most of the field. I have reservations about both.

Romney: Of course, Romneycare is a lodestone, mostly because it nixes Obamacare as a line of attack. He also parrots the climate change nonsense. It is also troubling that his 'conservatism' has been a slow and politically-motivated conversion. However, he speaks very well, has had a private sector job, and plenty of executive experience. I suspect I will be disappointed by a President Romney though not as disappointed as I am with President Obama.

Perry: Ron Paul had it right when he noted that Perry is from a Right-to-work state with no income tax and a business-friendly environment; Perry would have to make an effort to screw up the economy in relation to the other states. I am troubled by his longevity in office: he is the longest serving governor in state history, having just been elected to an unprecedented third term. Plus, he had finished out the last two years of Bush's 2nd term. Reminds me of FDR. Career politicians are usually trouble. Another downside is that he is the Texas Governor so soon after another Texas Governor was president. But, like Romney, I'd be less disappointed by a President Perry than a President Obama.

Time will tell if the conventional wisdom is valid.

The Debate

It was a mildly entertaining and sometimes fiery debate. Not easy to declare a winner.

- Romney did well though his defense of Romney-care as consistent with the 10th Amendment was weak. It is hard to believe in small government on the federal level while supporting large government at the state level. Still, he is correct. There were established state churches when the Bill of Rights was approved, though no one mentions that. The Bill of Rights exists to limit the federal government, not the states. Other than that, he came off well.

- Bachman was mired in defending herself from repeated attacks from Pawlenty. It was often distracting how much she had to reply to attacks. One attack stuck, in that she has a limited list of accomplishment but Congressmen seldom have much in that regard, especially if you believe in limiting government. Even so, it was massively unfair of Pawlenty to pin anything the Congress did on her, since she is but 1 vote among 535 Congressmen. She may not be on the winning side but she votes right, even Pawlenty would have to admit that.

- Pawlenty was desperate. I found him generally annoying, too often jumping on opponents very directly. Though he was on attack, he lost his battle with Bachman. Very difficult for a man to attack a woman and come away the winner; ask Rick Lazio. Worse, no one attacked him except in response to his attacks. When Pawlenty spoke, he either attacked someone or defended his record. Not a good impression.

- Paul was sometimes brilliant and sometimes obtuse. The liberty agenda is great but at times Paul saw no difference between war and crime. A foreign terrorist is not a criminal who should get the benefits of US trial. Geneva convention says we can stand them against a wall and shoot them. Let's go with that. Still, I'd be willing to try Paul's isolationist foreign policy if I could get his domestic policy. Abolish the Fed!

- Huntsman was better than I expected. Of course, that doesn't say a lot. And, though it has only been a short time, I can recall nothing memorable about what he had to say. But he left a good impression.

- Santorum was overlooked. He got irritated by the lack of questions that came his way. It did seem that Romney and Bachman had an unusually high portion of the time. Santorum was probably the most socially conservative person there. He jousted with Paul several times, notably on states rights (Paul would let the states do as they please where Santorum held there were limits, mentioning polygamy). Well-spoken and passionate.

- Cain was good on economics but less so on everything else. He needlessly announced that he had studied up on foreign policy, thereby revealing to a new audience an earlier gaffe. After prefacing his comment with that, he gave an adequate answer about Afghanistan.

- Gingrich was strong. He jumped down Chris Wallace's throat in response to a question about his resigning campaign staff, calling it a gotcha question. His answers were often the most thoughtful. He and Paul were the only ones who proposed that the entirety of US foreign policy needed rethinking. He and Romney were the best debaters.

Most of these candidates have very little riding on the Straw Poll. However, it could be a make or break for Pawlenty. I'm leaning toward break.