This was the first time I allowed CNN in my living room since the Clinton Administration but it was necessary.  I wanted to see these candidates because like my readers, I have a decision to make next year. 

I did not know the moderator.  I had to look up his name, John King.  The most negative comment I have about the entire debate was that King often asked open-ended questions but then interrupted candidates as they attempted to answer.  When he set the ground rules, he indicated there would not be annoying lights or buzzers but that he would interrupt if answers became too long.  I do not know about the candidates but I would have preferred the lights or the buzzers had I been on that stage.  Because of my experience with CNN I wondered whether those questions were intended to leave doubts if he could prevent the candidate from a complete answer.  There were also periods during which it appeared that King wanted to incite an argument between the candidates and perhaps portray one or more of them as loose cannons.  It never happened.  The stage appeared to contain seven class individuals intent on serving their country.     

Included in the debate were Rick Santorum, Michelle Bachmann, Newt Gingrich, Mitch Romney, Ron Paul, Rick Pawlenty and Herman Cain.  Was there a winner?  I don't really think so.  I believe every one of those candidates acquitted themselves well last night.  I saw no real winner unless you count a professional and likeable demeanor as winning for those who were less known or for those desiring confirmation of a candidate they already like. 

All candidates followed the Reagan commandment, 'Do not speak evil of another Republican'.  But there was an added corollary last night.  They referred to the answers of other candidates and when the others made good points, they leveraged those answers recognizing the other candidate and what that candidate had contributed.  It was like a breath of fresh air.  I had never seen political candidates acknowledge that a competitor might also have a good idea. 

There appeared to be universal acceptance of the right to life.  Throughout the debate I also heard really good ideas for dealing with the economy and the failure of the Obama Administration to create an environment sufficiently positive to business to encourage business to begin creating jobs.  Odd, during the Clinton Administration every piece of legislation offered by Clinton and Gore was accompanied by the statement that they were dealing with a crisis.   Here we are in 2011 and we are facing a real crisis, unlike any we had to deal with in the Clinton or Bush administrations.  Yet I have not heard the press call this debt, this unemployment rate, our face-off against our enemies, this consolidation of power in the federal government or this inherent destruction of personal liberty as a crisis.  Last night I heard really sound ideas that would constitute a good place to start:  repeal of Sarbanes-Oxley, repeal of Dodd-Frank and of course, repeal of Obamacare.  

Ladies first:

Michelle Bachmann: 

Michelle began her first answer by declaring herself to be a candidate for the Presidency.  She is no longer exploring.  She is in the race. 

Michelle did well when confronted with a need to defend the Tea Party.  She was asked a question by an individual who identified himself as a mainstream Republican, not a social conservative and not a Tea Party subscriber.  The sound of the question would lead one to believe this Republican has a concern about the issues brought forward by the Tea Party.  The question he asked was how she and other candidates would avoid domination by the Tea Party in their governance.  Michelle spoke to who the Tea Party was.  Tea Parties are made up of Republicans, Democrats, Independents, and others who hold the Constitution high and insist that their representatives conform to that document.  It was a terrific answer. 

Michelle also answered the question appropriately regarding homosexual marriage.  She stated her opposition but she also in a direct answer to the question asked, "Would she attempt to override state laws of those states that currently recognize these  unions?"  No, she said she would not interfere with the right of any state to create its own laws.  As the question moved through the group it morphed into a question of whether the candidate would support a Constitutional Amendment to define a marriage as the union of one male and one female.  She reclaimed the floor and indicated that she agreed with the concept of a Constitutional Amendment recognizing that any such amendment would necessarily have the endorsement of 75% of the states.  To me this demonstrated her strength.  She did not want to leave the wrong impression as a result of the specific question placed before her having taken a new dimension.  The question had changed.  She took control and prevented an incorrect impression from ever being created.     

On foreign policy, specifically the Libya conflict Michelle indicated that she saw no vital interest in our being there and as such she did not support our participation in that conflict.  

With regard to the economy Michelle pointed toward her early opposition to TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program) as presented in the fall of 2008 by the Bush Administration.  She also opposes any increase in the Debt Limit.  

Finally the evening would not have been complete if CNN didn't ask each candidates' position on abortion.  Michelle said she believed in life from the point of conception.  I think we already knew that and CNN wasted the opportunity to ask a question that perhaps the nation does not know the answer to and that might benefit the electorate in getting to know our options in this race.

Michelle Bachmann would make a better President than Barack Obama. 

Herman Cain

Herman Cain was asked about the strength of the Republican field.  The moderator pointed toward the polls as saying that this field is not that strong.  Cain quickly turned the table on that notion by pointing to polls as only a barometer.  The storm isn't that close yet and people have only just begun to meet the candidates (my words).  This is not a weak field.  I believe it was stated by Cain as I know it was stated by others that any candidate on that stage would make a better President than Barack Obama.  I continue to react with condemnation on people who tell me that one or more of these candidates is not qualified to be president.  Look at who is in that position right now?  What were his qualifications?  After more than 2 1/2 years I continue to ask what experience he has yet that would qualify him to be President of the United States?

Herman was asked about a statement that he had made that he would have no muslim in his administration.  Herman asked to correct the quote.  He apparently had said that he would want to verify that the loyalty of any member of his cabinet would have to be to the US Constitution, above all else.  With regard to Shariah Law he said it has no place in any American Court. 

With regard to Illegal Immigration Herman pointed to the need to secure the border, enforce existing laws and refuse taxpayer funded services to those here illegally.  Herman also responded to his interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment as not granting birthright citizenship.  He had been asked whether a child of a couple who are both here illegally should be granted citizenship if born in this country.  His answer was, "No!"  

The only weakness I saw in Herman Cain's presentation was Herman's statement that he is a "Problem Solver".  For me he is beginning to sound like a broken record on this point.  I believe he should continue to point out his private sector experience and the fact that he is not a politician but there have got to be better messages to use as a take away image than his being a problem solver.  I loved it when during the first debate he pointed to all the political experience presently in Washington and asked, "How's that working out?"

Herman pointed to the NLRB and described them as killing the free market system.  He said he initially agreed that TARP was a necessary idea but he then pointed to its administration where the Obama Administration has used those funds to pick winners and losers.  This he does oppose, particularly the use of TARP funds to secure control of GM and Chrysler.  

Herman Cain would not have involved us in Libya.  He sees nothing in that state that would be a concern to us. 

Herman Cain would make a better President than Barack Obama.

Newt Gingrich:

Newt gets my award for Best Answers of the Evening. 

Newt spoke of the importance of other elections, not just the Presidency.  He painted the accurate picture of the importance of having twelve more votes in the Senate and another forty seats  in the House to guarantee we can repeal Obamacare.  

Newt pointed out that the question that had been posed to Herman Cain asking about comprehensive immigration reform was consistent with the typical media question as the question always portrays the issue as an all or none option.  Do you allow 20 million to stay or do you attempt to deport 20 million.  The question assume an all or none solution.  He described the answer as being the points that Herman Cain had presented.  Secure the border, enforce the existing laws, refuse taxpayer benefits and services to persons here illegally.  We do not need a comprehensive bill and the American people do not support a comprehensive bill.  Newt said that among the problems we have is that we are consistently provided two extreme alternatives when asked this question.  Gingrich called the moderator on this and emphatically stated it to be time for the media to deal with this honestly.  No serious citizen should be forced to answer a question like the one the moderator had presented because it requires a choice between two extremes.  

Newt pointed out the tyranny being perpetrated on the people by the National Labor Relations Board by making Right to Work laws a national issue.  He pointed to the desire of the Boeing Corporation to manufacture an airplane in South Carolina and the opposition of the NLRB to this decision because South Carolina is a Right to Work state.  Newt insists that the states should decide Right to Work issues, not the NLRB.  

Newt responded to the foreign policy question of whether we should be involved in the Libyan fight.  No.  He is concerned about the reality that we do not know who the rebels are and whether we might be funneling US resources toward a group that includes a high percentage of our own enemies.  

Newt was also asked whether he would appoint a muslim to his administration.  His response was good.  "If you are not prepared to be loyal to the United States of America, you will not have a place in my administration."  The question was initially asked of Herman Cain who was quoted, apparently inaccurately as stating Cain would not appoint a muslim.  See Herman Cain.

In response to the question regarding state laws that provide for homosexual marriage Newt indicated his support for a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage as a  contract between a man and a woman.  I personally believe this is necessary because of the Full Faith and Credit clause in the US Constitution that requires every state to recognize contracts made in other states. 

Newt Gingrich would make a better President than Barack Obama.

Ron Paul

The primary thing that differentiates Ron Paul from the others on that stage is that he is an Isolationist and a Libertarian.  As one would expect this came out again last night but not nearly as strongly as it did in the debate that was held in South Carolina. 

Ron Paul would bring all our troops home from both Iraq and Afghanistan right now.  He does not care what the conditions are on the ground.  He'd bring them out right away.  He sees no purpose in their being there.  

Ron identified himself as pro-life.  This is contrary to what I understand to be the norm among Libertarians.  I would have liked to have heard more from him on this subject primarily because of his Libertarian point of view.   

Ron also opposes the intrusion of the Federal Reserve Bank in our monetary and fiscal policy and he pointed to monetary policy, taxes and regulations as being the primary reason for this economy being in the toilet.  As we print money and weaken our currency we push jobs overseas.  He was specifically asked about economic stimuli that some industries depend upon and without hesitation he indicated that there should be no government subsidization of industry.  

I especially appreciated Ron's statement that rights are not identified to groups in our Constitution, they are identified as rights of individuals.  This has to be among the most important distinctions that must be continually made.  I would love to hear each candidate express their definition as to what is a right and apply that definition to healthcare and other entitlements.   

When asked about Medicare he indicated that Medicare had to change.  We need more competition in medicine and this can't happen while government is involved as a player. 

Ron was asked whether he believed medical professionals should be required to provide care to someone here illegally.  No.  They should not be required to provide service.  I did not take this as an indication that as a medical doctor he would refuse care to someone in need.  I believe his comment was with regard to government forcing a medical provider to provide that care.  

With regard to the question of Imminent Domain he pointed to there being no right of government to confiscate the property of a private individual and give that property to a corporation or another individual.  

Ron Paul would make a better President than Barack Obama.

Tim Pawlenty

There was a mix of ridiculous questions in this debate and Tim Pawlenty got one of them.  Who was the better choice for VP in 2008, Biden or Palin?  Tim pointed to the record of Biden wanting to partition Iraq and his history of always being wrong.  Palin was a much better choice than Biden.

Tim pointed to our trade with China and other export/import relationships.   He believes in Fair Trade but he also does not believe in being a chump. 

With regard to Right to Work laws Tim emphasized his background as blue collar union while at the same time stating emphatically that no person should be forced to join a union as a condition of employment. 

The one area of improvement that I would caution Tim Pawlenty on is his tendency to want to bluster.  The father of three navy seamen who asked a question about when our servicemen and women should return home had already been thanked for his sacrifice and the service of his sons by the first person to whom the question was presented and it really wasn't necessary to do so again.  Yet, Tim did.  It came off as patronizing.  I would caution Tim to get down to business when in these debates.  I might not have noticed this at all had I not been critical of his wasting my time in that first debate by thanking all those in Greenville, SC as well as all those not there.     

In response to what method would help the housing market Tim said that government should get out of the way. 

In a question about the Separation of Church and State, Tim pointed out that the First Amendment was intended to protect the religious from the government, not to protect the government from those who are religious.  

Tim also supports the state's right to enforce federal laws when the federal government refuses or is unable to enforce them directly.    

Tim Pawlenty is pro life.

Tim Pawlenty would make a better President than Barack Obama.

Mitt Romney

Mitt Romney was emphatic that every person on that stage would make a better President than is currently in the White House.  Personally I believe this would have been true if the stage were made up of the characters from the Wizard of Oz.  This was a theme that was present throughout the evening and seemed at times to dominate.  These Republican candidates have more in common than they have as issues of separation and they complement one another.  They offer a much better alternative than what we have now and all I seek is an alternative.  

One early question to Mitt Romney was a challenge to his healthcare law in Massachusetts.  Mitt probably gave the best defense I have heard him provide yet.  1)  The state has an interest that is consistent with its own constitution; 2) What is good for Massachusetts is not necessarily good for any other state; 3) Each state provides a laboratory for what works and what does not work.  They are flexible and can modify what is not working quickly; 4) If Obama is claiming that he followed the Romney plan in Massachusetts why is it that Obama never called him to find what worked well and what didn't work well?  5) Ultimately they went through the bankruptcy courts but not until Obama had wasted more than $17 billion of taxpayer money.  I contend that this $17 billion was not wasted.  Much of it went toward replenishing the UAW pension funds and to adding to UAW coffers to permit them to contribute back to Democrat candidates in the 2010 election.  I consider these as unauthorized uses of taxpayer funds, not waste.    

With regard to TARP and what Obama did to save the auto industry Romney emphasized that following bankruptcy law would have been a far better solution than the one selected by Obama.     

Mitt agrees with Ron Paul and every other Republican on that stage on the issue of Imminent Domain.  Any use of Imminent Domain must be for a public purpose, not a private purpose.

Mitt disagrees with Ron Paul on the issue of our troops overseas.  He would want to bring our troops home from Afghanistan when conditions on the ground permit it.  

Mitt Romney would make a better President than Barack Obama.

Rick Santorum

Among the things I learned about the candidates last night that I was actually hearing for the first time was the role that Rick Santorum played in drafting Welfare Reform legislation during the Clinton Administration.  Apparently Newt Gingrich assigned to Santorum the responsibility for that legislation.   Score a point for Santorum.  

Santorum opposes access to taxpayer funded services by illegal immigrants.  

Rick would end all subsidies including ethanol.  He would phase out the subsidies and also phase out the tariff on ethanol imports.  He would expect this industry to be able to survive without government subsidies. 

Rick would not eliminate our military bases overseas.  He pointed to the need for an administration to have an enforceable strategy and that no strategy can be enforced without a presence around the world.  He emphasized that Obama has turned his back on our allies and he has embraced our enemies.  

Rick Santorum is most definitely a proponent of the Right to Life. 

Rick Santorum would make a better President than Barack Obama.