I actually watched some of the debate last night - I avoid these things cause they're just pathetic displays, they're not debates, they're the equivalent of fashion shows, model walks for political candidates - do a little promenade on the stage, flash some sound bites, some canned answers, some shameless pandering to the benighted audience - it's pathetic that we actually think these farces reflect well on our democracy - rather to me they express the vacuity of the culture, the shallowness of the process - it's not a debate if, one, you try and cover multiple subjects which essentially guarantees that substance will be sacrificed to empty rhetoric, and two, if the candidates cannot challenge the positions of each other in a detailed way - like I said, it's a fashion show, it's embarrassing - and then the moderator, John King, starts off with a question to Gingrich about his marriage which is like throwing a soft, 'hey Newt, give us a rant about the evil liberal media' hanging curve ball to a power hitter - and accordingly Gingrich knocks it out of the park with the rabid glee of a steroid addled psychopath and the silly crowd goes nuts and effectively at that point the "debate" is over because for a large section of the right wing electorate all that really matters is an appealing show of anger against liberals, and Gingrich does that very well - which is why he's now apparently leading in South Carolina and why it won't surprise me at all if despite all the compelling reasons not to vote for the man [ie, he's insane] he pulls out a win - an eventuality I warned people of when they tried to convince themselves after New Hampshire that the race was over and the nominating process was working efficiently and within the bounds of common sense and clear reasoning.
But regardless of all that, I watched the debate and have concluded [tentatively] that, even though I've defended Romney and for very good reason - I was looking for other more appealing prospects to jump in but they didn't so that leaves Romney as clearly the only legitimate candidate in the race - but I'm not sure that even he can beat Obama. He just can't shake that whole oddly detached, stiff, programatic Mormon thing - it hurts him and I'm thinking is why he's so far not effectively rebutted the attacks on Bain Capital. I dunno - possibly his performance improves once he no longer has to appease the uber right blowhards - still, it just feels like something is missing there, something the average voter is looking for - but I see very popular republican governor Bob McDonnell just endorsed him, so... I do think Romney would be a good president - but that's a useless thing if you can't beat Obama. And remember, given the changes that must happen if Romney takes the White House in November, he's gonna have to sell a difficult agenda to the country, there's gonna be a lot of resistance - he's gonna have to be a good salesman, communicator - is that Romney? Don't see it at the moment. If he wins who he picks as VP will be crucial - he'll need to pick someone with the skills and attributes to act as salesman in chief cause I'm not sure that's something Romney could pull off.
[Krauthammer has a good article up which makes point of why it's a big deal that Romney so far has failed to effectively defend his business dealings and taxes - granted these left wing attacks are now issues in a right wing primary because of the unfathomable idiocy of Gingrich et al - still, if Romney can not make this case and make it in a way that resonates with a broad spectrum of independents and disgruntled small 'L' liberals, then he can't beat Obama - that's a problem]
[some are taking issue with my refusal to consider Santorum a 'legitimate' option. Well... I'm still suffering some trauma from the googling of 'santorum' - I know conservatives are hunkered down into a near monolithic state of denial over this nastiness - but I can't shake the visceral unpleasantness of it, so... but in an ostensibly more serious vein, sure Santorum is the only not-Romney who, should some utterly shocking, incomprehensible miracle vault him into the presidency, it wouldn't necessarily plunge me into a despond of dread and despair - I'd be troubled, sure, but not dismayed in the sense that Gingrich/Cain/Paul might inspire. So... the man has no executive experience and given the challenges the country is facing that's a big minus - even if I loved Santorum as a candidate I'd probably still side with Romney since I think executive experience is vital here, and Romney has tons of it - besides, what experience Santorum does have is all in the public sector - again, a big negative when compared to Romney - but of course the thing is it's impossible to love Santorum because he's a creature spawned in the social conservative swamp and that's a big do not pass go problem when it comes to a presidential campaign - if he was an appealing personality with an inspiring story and a sympathetic press trailing in his wake willing to tell it without question - the attributes that carried the uber lefty Obama to the throne - well then maybe he could sneak one by an ever gullible public - but of course Santorum is decidedly not a likeable fellow with a putatively great story to tell and a fawning press under his thumb pining to tell it - and so unelectable and almost certainly not a good fit for the job in either case - it's really gonna be near impossible to move this country in the direction it needs to go without some enlightened bipartisan cooperation - I don't see how a guy utterly chained to the uber rightness of social conservatism would manage something like that - especially when he has no experience of ever even trying to manage something like that - he's simply not a legitimate candidate once you move beyond the cloying distortions of the republican base]
