Most of the candidates acquitted themselves well on Tuesday night at the Dartmouth Debate.  If there was a winner, I cannot say who it was because I believe Gingrich, Romney, Cain, Hunstman, Paul, Santorum, and Bachmann all did very well.  If there was a loser, I believe it was Perry. 

I do not mean to sound like I am piling on but it has been a bad week for Rick Perry.  He had already slipped in the polls when Pastor Jeffress, the man who had introduced Perry at a campaign gathering provided a private moment with the press and denigrated Mitt Romney's religion.  Why would anyone, especially a man of the cloth, disrespect someone for his or her religion as he did?  Worse, this has been in the news now for three days and Perry has said nothing about it.  Then there was tonight's debate.  Perry looked uncomfortable.  When others laughed as Governor Huntsman's joke about gas in Washington, he sat with a pained expression on his face demonstrating no sense of humor.  With the conversation focused on China and the imbalance of trade caused by China's currency manipulation, Perry interrupted everyone to change the subject to Energy.  Governor Perry, energy is important.  I want regulations to end.  I want Texas and all oil rich states to drill.  However, the moderator was directing the conversation to foreign relations and specifically China.  I could only interpret this as a talking point he needed to introduce to the debate but he did not pick his time well.

I thought both Newt Gingrich and Michelle Bachmann delivered knock out blows on Obamacare.

I thought Herman Cain was strong in his defense of 9-9-9 however as mentioned previously I believe that for this to work it must be in a Constitutional Amendment.  If we elect Cain, he will not always be president and the Congress will change three times subsequent to his inauguration.  I do not trust those Congresses and I do not trust his successor not to change that legislation only to require a majority to change rates.  9-9-9

Cain's weakest moment was his reference to Alan Greenspan as a model Chairman of the Federal Reserve.  It was also Ron Paul's strongest moment.  Paul gave semi-applause to Paul Volcker but he called Greenspan a disaster.  Given that Bernanke has followed Greenspan's lead, I do not know how anyone today could call Greenspan a model chairman.  

As candidates asked their questions of each other, most targeted a specific opponent.  Those so designed missed their mark and in some cases were obvious attempts to create a perception that may not be true.  Romney asked his question of Bachmann.  It was polite.  It was core and it was a good question.  Bachmann handled it easily without a need to be on defense.  Score one for Bachmann and especially for Romney.  He did not focus a question to hurt his closest opponent. 

Score one for Gingrich as well.  His strategy has elevated him from a candidate I could not support to a candidate I could easily support because of these debates.  His strategy is obvious.  He is talking issues and about the Obama record.  He is not talking personalities, religions, candidate histories, etc.  He is addressing the issues straightforwardly and he is making excellent observations when he does.  When he calls the Congress stupid for not repealing Dodd-Frank already, he does so with great credibility.  He has been there. 

I remain undecided in this primary.  This is an advantage.  I will have other opportunities to hear these candidates.  I will not have to make my decision until long after the field narrows.  Every one of these candidates is superior to Barack Obama, a point made often and well by Newt Gingrich.  I have expressed before that I cannot support Paul or Huntsman because of statements made in earlier debates.  I also believe Perry should drop out of the race.  Since being told that I have no heart I cannot seem to find it in my heart to forgive Rick Perry for his position on illegal immigration.  For me, today, it is between Cain, Romney, Bachmann, Gingrich, and Santorum.  This is not in any particular order.