The Bloomberg Debate

            If you are like me you watched last nite’s Bloomberg, GOP debate.  I found it very entertaining and informative – a pleasant change from all the clichéd cops and robbers, sitcoms, and game shows, very few of which I watch.  And if you were like me you didn’t need a couple of academics to tell me who came out on top, who had the most promising plan to get America back on the road of economic recovery – and who was the most prepared and most articulate, that could out debate Obama.

            Instead of grading the candidates from the top down, let’s look at them from the bottom up.  The idea, it seems to me, of these many debates is to eliminate the weakest contenders until we have three, two and eventually one whom we can all rally around and support.  That said, which two should we eliminate”

            I would first eliminate Huntsman.  He does not come across convincingly.  He tried to make a joke about cults, which came across as stupid.  His only accolade is his experience as ambassador to China.  His idea is to pussyfoot with China.  Who is China’s biggest customer, we are.  The trade deficit is way out of balance in China’s favor.  Who’s economy is Huntsman rooting for, ours or China.  Of course we have to stand up to China.  The interest we pay to China finances their military. 

            Who should be second?  Probably Santorum.  I like some of the things Santorum has to say and I think he is a smart man and a good man.  Unfortunately, personality-wise he doesn’t come across as presidential. 

            Most pundits agreed that Parry had to make a strong showing.  In my opinion he didn’t.  His only promising idea was to exploit our natural “energy” resources, citing a plan he would introduce in three days. 

            I think we should be to the point where we look for the man who can best standup and out debate Obama.  Parry is not that man.  That is not to say Parry has not been good for Texas.  He obviously has.  But for those of us who have been around politicians, especially those career politicians with well oiled machines and keep getting reelected, “the good old boys,” I see some of those subtle ostentatious characteristics in Parry. 

            Cain held his own but didn’t advance. Buchman’s rhetoric was much stronger.  Paul often makes common sense but his foreign policy is still out in left field.  Gingrich is a hoot.  His intelligence and wit is unique and remarkable.  It doesn’t appear that he has much of a chance to become the lone candidate, but whoever is and is elected president, would be smart in asking Gingrich to be part of his cabinet.  I would even consider Bachman and Cain.  But for pure intelligence and political knowhow, Gingrich tops the list. 

            I noticed that when each candidate was given the opportunity as ask a question of one of their peers, Gingrich directed his question to Romney.  The nature of the question was to give Romney an opportunity to expand on his thinking.  It was not a “gotcha” question that was designed to thwart, as was the question directed to Romney by Parry.  Romney’s question to Bachman was of the same nature, a soft question that was not designed to hurt or embarrass.  Those with the most to lose and were desperate for gain had the most vitriolic questions.                              

                 Now, the question that might be contemplated is, will Chris Christie be Romney’s vice presidential running mate?