Video: First Republican Primary President Debate. Update: Reaction posted

Watch the Fox News first Republican Primary of 2012.  My opinion of the debate coming later.

My reaction:

I think it is safe to say that this particular debate offered us a glimpse into three distinct groups of politicians.  On one hand this particular breakdown is nothing new to Republican politics, but on the other hand we are fortunate enough that we are at least presented with options.

The three categories in my mind can be broken down as follows:

Status-quo Republican:  These particular folks tout the standard Republican line and even if they may on occasion criticize some particular policy they content with the direction of the GOP and generally believe that if the country were to adopt these policies then things would fall into place.  

New Republican:  Although they are quite different from the status-quo by the nature of them being new, they still espouse the same Republican status-quo ideals and do not veer far from the traditional party line. 

Liberty Republican: This is a relatively new concept, but be prepared to hear some variation of it on more a frequent basis.  These Republicans distinguish themselves primarily through their adherence to the Constitution and thus can proudly wear the moniker of liberty as they constantly strive to ensure that citizens experience and enjoy the maximum amount of freedom, choice and well...liberty. 

So how do our debaters break down and how did they do? 

Tim Pawlenty:  Nice, polished, status-quo Republican.  He says all the right things to make the current GOP elites very happy and if those on stage were the only candidates then I am sure that the heavy weights pulling the strings of the Republican party would be thrilled with T-Paw.  Unfortunately for the rest of us the prescription offered by Pawlenty is the same old tired rhetoric that got America into the state we are in.

Rick Santorum:  Another status-quo Republican although less polished than Pawlenty.  While Rick can proudly roll out a litany of his social conservative credentials he has absolutely nothing to offer this country in the way of leadership.  Worse yet, a strong focus on social conservatism may make certain religious Republicans very happy, but it creates partisanship while diverting from focus from important issues that plague this country.  We are broke, dollar is destroyed, record number on food stamps and millions of Americans falling into poverty and Santorum is railing on and on about marriage.  Really?  Perhaps if gay married couples and mothers who performed abortions caused our financial demise then Santorum would have just an ounce of credibility.  

Herman Cain:  Mr. Cain is a very interesting candidate, a new Republican and extremely charismatic.   However the problem with Herman Cain is unfortunately the same problem as the aforementioned candidates, underneath it all the solutions to our problems are very much the same solutions presented by the GOP.  At least that is what I am lead to believe because understanding where exactly Cain stands on issues is virtually impossible.  While his answers were polished, funny and answered properly there was very little substance in his answers.  

Worse yet, although Cain sells himself as an outsider and a self made man, but he is also the former Chairman and Member of the Board of Directors for the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City.  This is a man who on one hand tells the Government to get out of our lives and boldly talks about tax cutting sees no problem with the Federal Government engaging in central planning at the highest level of our economy.  How so?  He was on record opposing the audit of the Federal Reserve and even more depressingly supported the 2008 bailout.   For many Americans this may be forgivable, but Cain's belief that it was the "lack of action" of the 1929 Government that caused the Great Depression is enough to disqualify him as a legitimate candidate.  Only Americans completely devoid of study would make such a claim, hell, even Ben Bernanke admitted that it was the Federal Reserve that caused the Great Depression (albeit not for the right reasons).   

Ron Paul:  Well, what can we say about Ron Paul that has not been said already?  He is quite consistent and it is pretty much the same Paul we saw in 2008.  His delivery, timing and sense of humor have improved and he is more digestible, but unfortunately that is not saying much.  Paul presents us with a classic problem, he is a perfect Liberty candidate and his positions on everything from the economy to war is derived solely from the Constitution which lands him into some hot water with status-quo Republicans.  Same Republicans who on one hand claim to support the Constitution, but on the other hand screech and yelp when Paul proposes the legalization of drugs, withdrawing all troops from every base and country and removing every Department that is not authorized by Article 8 Section 1.   Really makes you wonder which Constitution it is that the Republicans claim to uphold, does it not?   Unfortunately for most Americans Paul does not look and feel presidential, even if his performance in this debate was one of his better ones.  I wish Paul would focus more on transitional practicality, just like he did with the example of heroin.  He properly answered the question of drug legalization because if heroin was suddenly legalized does not mean that people would magically be transformed into junkies.  He needs to answer in the same vein on issues regarding troop withdrawal, department shutdown and other aspects of downsizing that is currently leaving Americans scratching their heads. 

Gary Johnson:  Luckily for us, Ron Paul was not the only Liberty Republican.  Although many never heard of Johnson this two time Governor has plenty of executive experience, credibility and practical solutions.  However this kind of setting was a bit overwhelming for Gary and he was visibly nervous and shaky with his responses, something especially noticeable next to the likes of Tim Pawlenty.  However the substance of his replies and the content is extremely attractive to anyone who is just sick and tired of listening to the same old Republicans talking about the same old "solutions".   Sadly he was asked a particularly stupid question and stumbled badly.  While I can bemoan the unfairness of being asked a silly question, as a presidential candidate Gary needs to be able answer anything and everything with speed and class - he failed on that count.  However if he were to polish himself up then he will be a refreshing and welcoming change of pace from the traditional status-quo.

Conclusion:  The diversity of the candidates was visible and obvious, this of course is a very good thing.  The format of the debate was a bit awkward and some of the questions were perplexing, but overall every candidate handled himself in such a manner as to establish their persona very quickly.  My hope is that the next the debate which will inevitably feature people like Gingrich, Romney and others will continue to include Liberty Republicans - an issue that Ron Paul could not overcome in the later debates of 2008.  America deserves to hear the full range of options available to her and be presented with candidates that are willing to depart from traditional thinking and traditional policies that have been failing us for so long.