What happened to the Reagan 11th Commandment?  Republicans went after each other tonight with inappropriate or dishonest charges.  A few spoke over the top of their opponent when it was not their turn to speak and demonstrated a rudeness not before seen in these Republican debates. 

I am disappointed.  If Rick Santorum wishes to ask Mitt Romney a question then he owes Romney the opportunity to answer.  The same was true of Rick Perry.  He levied a charge against Romney about his having employed an illegal immigrant and spoke over the top of Romney when he tried to explain those circumstances.  It was boorish.  It was not becoming of anyone engaged in any debate and it colored my attitude further about a few of these candidates.  

It has long been known that Mitt Romney hired a lawn service.  That lawn service hired illegal immigrants.  When the Boston Globe disclosed that some employees were illegal, Romney contacted the lawn service and told them he would not allow this.  The service dismissed those workers.  Later, another illegal immigrant falsified documents and his lawn service did not know they had hired an illegal immigrant.  Again, the man was dismissed.  How could Perry levy a charge against Romney like this for a matter so benign?  Has politics succumbed to a flurry of gotcha moments?  Are there no more important issues to discuss than Romney's lawn service?  Is it improper to expect that Rick Santorum behave himself with a certain amount of decorum when participating in these debates? 

Who won the debate?  It certainly was not me except I did get to see another side of a few candidates that was not impressive.  Candidates, the way to elevate yourself is not to destroy those above you in the polls.  Your economic arguments support the belief that you do not pull yourself up by dragging someone else down.  You do not make yourself rich by making a rich man poor.  How is this any different?  If you want my vote, you will earn it by demonstrating that you offer something beyond your opponent, not by attempting to destroy your opponent.  That opponent, no matter how disconcerting it may be to you, could well be our candidate and all you have done is to arm everyone's opponent, Barack Obama, with sound bites that he will use in the national election.  Knock it off!!!!!

Some did impress me.  Despite the fact that Romney is not as conservative as I might like, he continues to impress.  He aptly defended himself tonight against the unfairness of Santorum and Perry.  He has made it clear that he will work to repeal Obamacare.  Opponents, find something new.  We understand the issues surrounding Massachusetts and the other 49 states.  Give it a rest.  Tell us something new about yourself instead of something old about Romney. 

Michele Bachmann was impressive tonight.  She blended some humor into her introduction by stating that in this case, what happens in Vegas will not stay in Vegas.  She was clear, articulate and her position on the change in tax laws proposed by Herman Cain was a criticism of the policy not a criticism of Herman Cain.  Michele also made an impassioned statement to women affected by the Obama economy by asking them to hold on, to do everything they can to hold onto their homes and that help was coming in 2013.  

Newt Gingrich expressed reservations about 9-9-9 but he did so reasonably.  He praised Herman Cain for his boldness in putting forth the effort to introduce a brand new idea.  Newt was concerned whether anything so radical could be done quickly.  He prefers a focused effort to eliminate many regulations and improve the existing tax code.  I also liked the way Newt responded to a question about the Latino Community and whether the Republican position on illegal immigration did not adversely affect that voting bloc.  Newt explained very well the need we have as a nation to respond to different races and ethnicities with a vibrant economy that will provide opportunity to all.  He disfavors programs that help specific groups and as a result penalize others.  I agree.

Newt also took a swipe at the super committee in the Congress and described them as responding to a dysfunctional model.  A committee of individuals trying to hit an arbitrary budget target should not adversely affect our national security.  

Ron Paul scored points when he spoke to this same issue.  He spoke of the Constitutional protections for individuals, not groups.  In a later comment he defended his position by stating that rights do not come in bunches.  They belong to individuals.  He is right.  Unfortunately, Paul also made a statement late in the debate about the residents of Guantanamo.  He railed against their being considered terrorists because none has been convicted of anything.  I am sorry Ron Paul but if you were on the battlefield fighting American soldiers on behalf of Al Qaeda you do not belong in our nation's court system.  You have no right to a jury trial to determine your guilt or association as a terrorist.  You are an enemy of our government and because of your association with the terrorist enemy we are fighting; you are fairly assumed a terrorist yourself.  

Herman Cain acquitted himself well once again.  He stayed out of the shouting match that consumed Perry, Romney, and Santorum.  This was easier for him as the critics of 9-9-9 were critical of a policy.  They were not declaring Herman to be a hypocrite nor trying to catch him in a gotcha moment.  His response regarding protesters in Occupy Wall Street demonstrations was excellent.  They are protesting the wrong people.  Wall Street did not spend a trillion dollars without positive effect.  Government forced the banks to make bad loans.  The Government forced TARP.  It was not Wall Street.  Their demonstrations need to be at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, D.C.

Rick Santorum spoke eloquently about the importance of religion in our election.  We should be concerned with the candidate's values.  Does the candidate possess a faith that Newt described as at the core of their judgment?  Santorum redeemed himself by pointing to his Catholicism as being different from Romney or Perry's religion.  The manner in which a person exercises their faith is personal and should not be a part of any campaign.  

Perry was limited in his statement concerning the Reverend Jeffers who had made the offensive statement about Romney's religion at a Perry campaign event.  He does not agree with the Reverend.  However, he was bellicose when he described his conservatism as genuine and encouraged voters to judge Romney by his past.  He called Romney a failure as Governor of Massachusetts.  Romney then nailed Perry as the former campaign manager for Al Gore in the State of Texas.  If you live by the sword, you will die by the sword, Governor Perry.  Perry was also rude to Anderson Cooper, the moderator when he told Cooper that he has to ask the questions and "I get to answer as I want to."  I found Perry's tactics to be over the top, to resemble bullying and to be nonpresidential.     

Newt summed it all up in the end by stating that formats designed to maximize bickering are not helpful.  If nominated Gingrich would challenge Obama to a series of Lincoln-Douglas style debates.  I would love to see those debates and I have no doubt, who would win going away.  Gingrich is certainly the brightest star on that stage whether he ultimately proves to be my choice or not.  Week after week, he brings reason, humor, and analysis in a way unmatched by the other candidates. 

Any of them would make a better President than Barack Obama.