Thursday night's Republican debate had several winners in my opinion and one big loser.  I have been concerned since the introduction of Rick Perry that people were demonstrating irrational exuberance toward his candidacy.  I have watched and listened with great curiosity to see the man almost everyone had told me was the perfect blend between character and conservatism.  However, in the middle of the debate Governor Perry told us conservatives that we have no heart.  No heart?  We have no heart simply because we do not want our government defining to whom we should show compassion and how we should show it?  No heart simply because we see no obligation or compunction to subsidize the education of persons who do not belong in this country?  This is perhaps the portion of this argument that no one has ever been able to explain to me.  If we know a student is the child of illegal immigrants then why do we not simply have their parents arrested and their whole family deported?  Instead, Governor Perry apparently wishes to saddle the citizens of Texas with the obligation to discount their tuition in the Texas university system to the tune of $22,000 per year.  A student from Arizona or Arkansas cannot get that deal.  Why should a child who belongs on the Yucatan Peninsula or Baja?  I do not want a policy like this extended to the whole country. 

Rick Santorum took Perry to task with aplomb.  I appreciate the strength of a man who will stand face to face with an adversary and tell him without trepidation that he is wrong and why he is wrong.  Score several points for Santorum from this debate.

Santorum did not state whether he agreed or not with a Federal Right to Work Law but he did indicate that he would eliminate public employee unions.  That is good enough.  I also favor right to work laws but the elimination of the Executive Order Kennedy signed that provided public employees a legal right to organize would be a great step in the right direction. 

I emphatically agree with Santorum's position on troop withdrawals.  We must withdraw only after we have won.  We must not withdraw for political reasons. 

Another question he fielded was regarding the social experimentation in our military.  It is not the place.  Santorum called it tragic that the current president has extended the military into areas of social experimentation.  The military must be mission focused.  Santorum indicated that he would reverse the Obama decision to void the "Don't ask, don't tell." policy currently in effect.  He did add the caveat that he would not penalize anyone in the military who has identified himself as homosexual during the period Obama's policies were active.  Issues regarding sexuality have no place in the military and sex should never be an issue of concern.  

Gary Anderson had one of the best lines of the night when he stated that his neighbor's two dogs have created more shovel-ready jobs than Obama.  However, I have already eliminated Anderson due to his libertarian notions about controlled substances and even this zinger will not elevate him to a level of consideration in my evaluations.

Newt Gingrich, on the other hand restored himself as a serious alternative.  I was down on Gingrich due to his gaffs, particularly his negative statement many weeks ago about Paul Ryan and the 2012 Budget.  With each debate, Newt demonstrates that the strongest person on that stage intellectually is he.  I do not know why this should surprise me.  Actually, it does not surprise me at all.  I have said from the beginning that Newt's brilliance would overshadow anyone that shares the stage with him.  In the first debate, he scolded the questioner about the quality of questions and the seeming desire to create rifts between the candidates.  In this one, he responded to a question by Megyn Kelly that essentially stated that given that Washington is as it is, how he could expect to be able to balance the budget by spending cuts alone, cuts that would have to be in the magnitude of 43%.  Newt's response was that given the way the question was presented, we can't.  He then told us we cannot accept Washington remaining as it is and if we do accept this we might as well all buy Greek Bonds and fold it up.  Score several points for Gingrich. 

Gingrich also had one of the better lines of the evening in addition to his response to Megyn.  He quoted one of my idols, Ronald Reagan when he said this, "If your brother loses his job, it is a recession.  If you lose your job, it is a depression.  When Jimmy Carter loses his job it will be a Recovery."  We all could see how this applies to Barack Obama and I certainly look forward to a recovery.  

Mitt Romney was poised.  He looked at those who were critical of him and he gave strong answers.  We will have to wait until we see the newest polls but I have to believe that Romney could very well have caught up to Perry and perhaps passed him.  He may have dealt a death blow to Perry by challenging his position on illegal immigration and making him justify his position on in-state tuition for illegal's in the Texas university system.  Romney will never be able to satisfy every conservative on the issue of the Massachusetts healthcare bill but why should he have to?  That is Massachusetts.  Massachusetts is a liberal state that supported that healthcare legislation and who supported Romney, not because of any conservative values he might possess but perhaps for other things.  He would have been remiss had he not listened to those living in Massachusetts and because of their desires not have provided the citizens the program they wanted.  It is his recognition that Massachusetts solutions will not work nation-wide and his vow to grant waivers to all fifty states and then repeal Obamacare that allows me to give him some slack on this healthcare issue. 

He pounded Governor Perry on his statements surrounding Social Security.  However, it was his confrontation with Perry on Illegal Immigration that may catapult him into the lead for the GOP nomination.      

Romney was critical of the President on foreign policy issues.  I agree with Governor Romney, we should be standing shoulder to shoulder with our allies like Israel and Great Britain and we should only discuss our disagreements with them behind closed doors.  He also declared without reservation that it is unacceptable for Iran to become a nuclear state.  However, I was surprised that he would not call Obama a Socialist given he was willing to state that Obama's worldview is a pledge of allegiance to the European Socialist model.  I cannot be too critical because I do not believe Obama to be a Socialist either.  I believe him to be a Marxist. 

I also enjoyed Romney's characterization of himself as a private sector businessman who only spent four years as a governor and while there, he had not inhaled.  This was excellent and for all these reasons, he was the big winner in the Thursday night debate.  Consider that he was closing on Perry and that during the debate he dealt Perry such a serious blow that he is no longer acceptable to me or to many other similarly minded conservatives.

Jon Huntsman reminded me why I have not supported him since his first debate.  He interjected answers that were trite.  In one, he introduced his wife as from Florida (the site of this debate) and the best person he has ever known.  When discussing healthcare he pointed to his daughter who has Juvenile Diabetes.  I applaud his wife and daughter for all they are willing to put up with especially the demands on the candidate and their willingness to stand on the dais with their husband/father yet I do not approve of the candidate pushing his family into the light.  I have always believed that the press should leave the candidate's family alone but Huntsman singled them out.  I simply do not approve.  

Herman Cain was as good as always.  I like Herman Cain.  His story of surviving fourth stage colon and liver cancer and his recognition that had Obamacare been in effect when his cancer had been discovered that he would be dead today made Obamacare far more personal.  We all know we must repeal Obamacare.  

Cain again explained his 9 - 9 - 9 tax program that would provide a 9% personal income tax, a 9% corporate income tax and a 9% consumption tax.  His response to the question of future administrations and Congressional ability to increase these rates was not strong but I appreciate his ideas on creating certainty on issues like taxation. 

When asked what department would he eliminate if he had to select one he immediately said the EPA.  He also cautioned that he would not turn his back on rational environmental controls but he recognizes that the EPA is out of control and destroying our economy.  The public responded to this question by referencing the following:

          Labor          - 8%

          EPA             - 12%

          HUD            - 12%

          Education   - 47%

          Other          - 20%

I am personally amazed that the Department of Energy did not make the top four on this list.  I have no quarrel with eliminating these departments but I would hope that whomever we elect would work to eliminate all of the Department of Energy except the Atomic Energy Commission.

He prefers a Chilean model as an answer for future retirees that could replace Social Security for persons not yet close to retirement.  

He added a word to the Reagan slogan of Peace through Strength.  He prefers Peace through Strength and Clarity.  He is right!  Our allies and our enemies must be clear of the consequences of their actions insofar as they relate to the United States. 

Michele Bachmann was strong and confident but when a candidate levies a charge against someone else on the stage, he/she has an obligation to look that person in the eye.  Rick Santorum was a model for this.  To stare away, even to stare into the camera is a sign of weakness.  If the candidate is directing a barb toward another candidate, he/she must put his or her focus on that other individual, not on the camera.  

Bachmann did score some points when she responded to a statement of indifference by another candidate on trade with Cuba.  She reminded everyone that Cuba is a state sponsor of terrorism.  Michele provided a strong, well thought out statement on religion.  The Constitution does not deny anyone of religious conviction access to the public square.  I scored some points to Michele Bachmann but I believe the only way she can survive is if Perry's gaff was so serious that he will leave the campaign and she can recover the support she lost to him after the Iowa Straw Poll. 

I would suggest that Michele find something besides the HPV vaccine program to use as criticism of Perry.  Perhaps this is moot but I believe that after two or three debates involving Perry that we are aware of the issue and we have made up our minds as to the significance it has toward our willingness to support Perry.  I will not be supporting Perry but is for different and already enumerated reasons.  

Ron Paul always makes good points on budgetary and fiscal policies.  Unfortunately with Paul come his isolationist policies and his willingness to legalize narcotics.  

Overall, I had no problem with the questions although I would appreciate a different focus on questions like whom we Americans regard as being rich.  They asked this of the candidates and as a polling question of the audience.  Apparently, on the question of who is rich 13% of the public regards anyone earning $100,000 as rich.  22% of the public believes that to be rich one must earn $250,000 per year; 22% believe that a person earning $500,000 per year is rich; and 44% believe that anyone earning $1 million per year is rich.  People need to understand you do not measure wealth by revenue.  You measure wealth by the Balance Sheet.  What do you own versus what do you owe?  Is a person with a million dollar income rich if he owes more than he owns?  One could define a person as rich who has his health and who is independent of a paycheck to survive.  

The Frank Luntz Focus Group that followed the debate overwhelmingly believed that Mitt Romney won the debate.  I am in good company.  I believe the same.   I place Gingrich and Santorum with him in the top three.