I watched Fox News with special interest on Thursday evening to get a glimpse of the candidates who have thrown their hats in the ring to be the next president.  Here is my assessment.

Tim Pawlenty - former Governor of Minnesota - I was frustrated by Governor Pawlenty from the first moment he opened his mouth.   He was asked a question and he had a limited time to give me an answer.  Still, he felt it necessary to waste half of that time by thanking South Carolina's Republican Party, his fellow candidates, Fox News, the citizens of Greenville, SC and everyone who wasn't there.  He will have additional chances with me but he doesn't get another chance to make a first impression.  His answer regarding a centrally controlled healthcare system managed by government from Washington was spot on.  It is not what we need.  Pawlenty would be much better than Obama.

Ron Paul - Congressman from Texas - his libertarian views extend well beyond my sensitivities.  I agree with him on most Constitutional matters and I especially liked his answer as to what government would be left to do if it were to end all those things that Paul rallies against.  His answer was that it could get back to those powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution.  Great answer.  I do not agree with his isolationist views.  His attitude toward the social issues like homosexual marriage and drugs also bother me.  Still, he would be much better than Obama.

Gary Anderson - former Governor of New Mexico - I do not like his views on abortion.  His position on allowing abortion prior to viability makes no sense to me.  When is viability?  Several years ago it might have meant a baby who had not developed beyond five pounds.  Today it might mean two pounds or even less.  This is a moving target as medical science advances and more and more babies are able to survive earlier and earlier outside the womb.  And then, I have little patience for persons who do not distinguish between water boarding, sleep deprivation and torture and even less patience for a leader who would not be willing to use whatever method was required to gain information that theoretically could save thousands or even millions of lives.  Don't preach values to me when millions of American lives are potentially at stake and one man possesses information that might save those Americans.  My short answer to would I torture is always no but my long answer when considering a situation as I just describe is that I would do anything and everything short of murder to get that information including actual torture.  Save the moral arguments that our values are better than that.  In the words of Dennis Miller, it would be immoral not to do everything necessary when lives are at stake.  Still, Anderson would be better than Obama.

Rick Santorum - former Senator from Pennsylvania - Santorum had especially good answers about the social issues that Governor Mitch Daniels has suggested we suspend.  He emphasized freedom, liberty and the importance of the family unit as the core to American society.  He also had a very good answer regarding the potential personal negatives of Newt Gingrich.  I think Santorum was one of the two biggest winners on Thursday night.  He would definitely be better than Obama.

Herman Cain - former Chief Executive Officer - Godfather's Pizza - he has never held elected office - Cain definitely turned his lack of political experience into a positive.  Most in Washington have held elected political office before, how is that working out for you?  His quips were engaging and he provided a sharp contrast in the way he approached problem solving than the typical politician.  His straightforward answer to dealing with our energy needs was refreshing and identical to the answer I would give and anyone with a modicum of experience in business would give.  He did an excellent job Thursday night.  He was pressed by the questioners because he has never held elective office and he came out the biggest winner because he was obviously prepared for those questions.  Cain would definitely be better than Obama. 

After the debate Frank Luntz led a focus group who overwhelmingly believed that Cain won the debate.  When pressing the group about Cain's lack of experience Luntz paralleled Cain's lack of experience to the lack of experience of Barack Obama that has contributed to our horrid state of affairs.  He also seemed to ignore that Obama is a Marxist and Cain a strong Capitalist.  Luntz pointed to the experience that Obama had as a US Senator.  I was disappointed that no one told Luntz that Obama was a US Senator in name only.  He spent the entire period that he was a Senator campaigning for president and he never held any position in his life that involved managing a single thing or a single person.  Cain has that experience in spades over Obama.  As the former Chief Executive he knows how to manage and it is management that is in such short supply in Washington D.C.