The Mind Says Romney, but the Heart Says Perry

The Republican presidential debate last night showed once again, and more forcefully, that Mitt Romney is going to be the GOP’s standard bearer in 2012. All the caveats and “yes, but something could happen” dreams engaged in by the more conservative elements of the party cannot hide the fact that Mitt Romney came to win, and that is exactly what he’s doing.

Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 proposal goes a long way to proving that a catchy turn of phrase and an iron determination to be considered a frontrunner can lift an otherwise ordinary boat. His own description of 9-9-9 is that it is “simple, transparent, efficient, fair and neutral” and, we might add, too slick to be serious as the basis for a presidency. We went that way the last time, with an “I’ll change Washington” campaign so nebulous that we didn’t realize that it was a code phrase for “you’ll love being European socialists.” Not that Cain and Obama are the same, but if Cain is to be a serious contender, he must quickly find a voice for other matters confronting America, namely, “jobs-jobs-jobs” as one debater put it last evening.

Newt Gingrich, for all his “ho-hum, isn’t this all a little boring” attitude, is still the GOP voice that resonates deepest in the caverns of conservative souls. His positions ring true to anyone willing to put aside partisan views, but Newt threw it all away by being unable, or unwilling, to show the discipline required to assemble the team and cash needed to be a real candidate. So, he is exasperatingly correct in his analyses at the same time that he is outside the real selection process.

These three were the winners last night. Romney is still the one to beat.

The losers?

Sadly, Jon Huntsman, who seems to be so polite, so cultured, so even-handed in his statements that it is difficult to remember what he stands for or thinks. As I’ve said before, he is the ideal Secretary of State, or perhaps UN Ambassador, but Huntsman is not presidential material. He almost seems above all that.

Long ago, Bachmann, Santorum and Paul ruled themselves out by being single-issue debaters whose ideology prevents them from being considered for the nation’s top job.  

That leaves Rick Perry. He is a puzzling person. His voice is not forceful or strident in the fashion we have come to expect from politicians. He is not always convinced by his own words, and occasionally apologizes for being wrong. His debating demeanor is almost that of a young man not sure of himself when up against seasoned professionals. His lack of a plan, his dependence of the “Texan” energy card when the question of economic turnaround is on the table - these add to the sense that he is still feeling for his position and voice. He said as much last night when he answered a question posed to him by Romney by saying, “I’ve only been at this for two months.”  

But, there is something about Rick Perry that sticks - it sticks to the heart, to the soul, to the sense of fair play in all Americans.  His eyes are innocent and open, not conniving or cynical. His voice is like everyone’s, not that of someone used to being on a national stage. And, he gives us the feeling that whatever he says, he feels and means, that it is not simply what somebody else wrote and he memorized before the debate began.

Finally, it is the eyes. They remind me of Ronald Reagan’s eyes - sparkling, warm, inviting and full of human kindness. If Rick Perry is to survive, he needs to develop these qualities to their fullest, because they could beat any poised debater any time, any place.