The 11th GOP Presidential Debate...and the Winner Is...

The 11^th Republican presidential debate was held last night in the Daughters of the American Revolution Convention Hall in Washington.

The DAR auditorium was filled with scholars from the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation, two conservative think tanks whose work is widely influential. It was these men and women who asked the GOP candidates questions about national security.

To give a broad brush, what we learned is, “Yes, Virginia, there is a learning curve.” Every debater is better now on his (or her) feet than at the beginning of this marathon. They are more assured, more polished in their approach to answers, and better informed on the topic of the evening.

Cain hit the business ball out of the park regularly, something the others often miss as a part of a complete answer. While Herman Cain is obviously not at ease in the fields of foreign affairs and national security, he has learned how to turn the questions toward what he does know - the economy. This brings a depth to his answers, even as they meander around the security issues, and Americans ought to be trying to decide how to use his expertise after the 2012 election.

Ron Paul’s libertarianism is fraying at the edges, as his textbook answers on the economy and personal liberty often fail to see the point in the questions. The enshrinement of personal liberty in the American Constitution is what sets America apart from its democratic peers in the world, but Ron Paul must surely understand that it is better to stop terrorists before they strike, as Gingrich chided, while saving personal liberty to the maximum extent possible. How he resolves this fundamental problem in libertarian philosophy will make or break his effort to bring libertarianism into the American political mainstream. He is so often right philosophically that we make allowances for his extreme views on liberty, but saying that the Taliban are only trying to get rid of US troops so they can govern as they choose is either naïve or disingenuous. Just ask Afghan women and children who were terrorized, starved and relegated to home prisons the last time the Taliban ruled in Afghanistan.

To cover the candidates who probably have little chance of being the GOP nominee  -

Rick Santorum - may he rest in peace, sooner rather than later. Profiling is not the answer unless it is informed by long-term intelligence support, and even then, it should not become profiling but the search for “suspects” whose whereabouts are being tracked. Ron Paul is right about this constitutional aspect of the security issue and it makes his position all the harder to knock down lightly.

Michele Bachmann gave her best performance last night, on a topic she understands and can discuss rationally. It’s too bad she cannot find this ease with other topics because it is clear that she has something to bring to the GOP party.

Jon Huntsman was in his home territory last night and it showed. His explanations and occasional frustrations were obviously the result of his mastery of foreign affairs and national security. It would be helpful to have him talk to a TV journalist one-on-one sometime so America can appreciate his expertise and wisdom and find the best place for his talents.

Now - for the big guns.

I am almost alone is continuing to see Rick Perry as a possible winner.  But, I must note that Perry is establishing his style and seems to be absolutely at ease now, giving his Reaganesque looks and answers with both seriousness and that “Reagan” twinkle in his eye that the others lack. I especially enjoyed his explanation of the national defense issue embedded in the Mexican border problem, and his assurance that it can be mastered and the border closed to illegals, which is in his view important because they include terrorists, a detail often ignored by the other debaters. Beneath that “aw shucks” persona, there is a mind and spirit as sharp and informed as any in the GOP debate. Rick Perry’s problem is that he has only 6 weeks left to convince Iowans and the polls tell us that the mountain he has to climb is as tall as Mt. Everest.

Newt Gingrich was also on home territory last night but his problem, for me, is still that slightly annoying impression he gives of someone lecturing to students. His points are always correct, his words ring with polished debating skill, but couldn’t Newt relax just a little. What did surprise me was his stand on regularizing illegal immigrants who have lived in the US for many years and who have paid taxes, have families and are good members of their communities. He is right, of course, but he knew he was on thin ice when he added that he would take the consequences of his view. Can anyone convince the tea party and other very conservative GOPers that people who are proud to be in America and are contributing their fair share to her success should not be treated like old dishcloths?

That leaves - as it always has this GOP debate season - Mitt Romney. I still feel uneasy about his positions on abortion, carbon taxes and health care. But, he stands there debate after debate giving answers that the rest of the field cannot argue with. He has the presence, the war chest, the poll leads and the media support that it takes to be nominated. Perhaps it is the media support that worries me most about Mitt Romney. I keep getting the feeling that the media are setting Romney and the GOP up for a loss in 2012, that they know his views are so close to Obama’s that he will be punched down as a weak copy of “the real thing.” That would be a tragedy for America because four more years of Obama would destroy the country.