I watched most of the Huckabee forum for republican presidential candidates last night. It was a rebroadcast, and I am not sure when it first was aired. The format was what made it interesting. Each of the candidates got equal time, alone, with a panel consisting of three republican state attorneys general, from Oklahoma, Florida and Virginia. They then each got to deliver a one minute closing statement. The format totally eliminated the childish "you said" "did not" back and forth that cluttered earlier debates. Plus, it addressed a major problem of fairness by giving them equal time. The questioners were all very conservative. The Florida AG, Pam Bondi, is so good looking it was hard to concentrate when she was talking, but otherwise, it was a total break from the gotcha questions and hostile tone of the mostly liberal journalists who have moderated past debates. There were no real highlight moments, at least when I watched. I thought Perry did much better, but his increasingly radical proposals are beginning to make him sound desperate. He openly appealed to be given a second chance. Ron Paul had his most extended opportunity to speak to a national audience. I think his supporters loved it, and everybody else had mixed emoptions. I mean, how can you not respect the guy? He has been saying this stuff for 30 years and no one paid attention. Now, his warnings have been proved to have been spot on, both on the financial side and on the foolish foreign and military policies we have followed. But is he the guy to take on Obama and , if elected, force through these fundamental changes? He admitted it would have to be a gradual process because people were more or less dependent on unconstitutional programs, and you couldn't just remove them forthwith. Bachmann was again polished and clearly in her element. Rromney has been going through a minor crisis in his campaign, as he has lost ground to first Cain, now Gingrich. He had a disastrous interview earlier in the week on Fox News, where he basically denied altering his positions. Sorry Mitt, the video doesn't lie. I missed Gingrich and Santorum unfortunately, except for their closing speeches. Gingrich is trying very hard to look presidential. Santorum is making a big push for two constituencies, the family values voters and the neo-con militarists. Interestingly, Huntsman did not attend, even though this format would have been tailor-made for him. The more I hear him speak, the more I like him, but his campaign strategy baffles me. He seems to be going all in on New Hampshire, a suicidal strategy since it is Romney's back yard. He should be doing what Newt did, eg use the debates and other free media as a form of public financing, and try to hang in there as a conservative alternative to Romney who is also articulate and electable. Huntsman should be getting the attention Newt has grabbed. He is more conservative than Newt and has none of the baggage. It will be interesting in the next couple of weeks to see how the new flavor of the month, Newt, survives the attacks that are coming his way. The odd thing is that the most damaging attacks are coming from conservatives like George Will and Ann Coulter. Even Sen. Tom Coburn said on national TV yesterday that he thought Newt lacked leadership skills and he couldn't support him. I see a process where Santorum and Huntsman drop out pretty soon. Then we will have kind of a two-tiered race, with Romney and Newt and maybe Perry on one level, and Bachmann and Paul and maybe Perry on the other. I don't see Paul dropping out early, and I think Bachmann will try to hang in there as long as possible. She can rationally see herself as possibly being the last person standing versus Romney, if Newt self-destructs and Perry can't get traction. It's a longshot, but what does she have to lose?
I too thought the format was great. I also missed the gingrich part. Perry changed my mind about his intelligence. He was very good on states rights issues. Which as Gov. I would hope to see but I was pleasantly surprised by Perry's aptitude and communication skills in light of his previous debates. I too would like to see Huntsman get some time. Perhaps Huntsman is running for VP.
I think in this election cycle, it would be suicidal for the Repubs to put forth an old white guy/old white guy presidential election team, especially if they both end up Mormons. I'm just saying.
I don't see Huntsman as a likely VP choice. The republicans need someone who can carry a battleground state or ideally a blue state. I would think their wish list would be Christie, Rubio, Romney if he isn't the nominee, maybe Scott Walker, maybe John Kasich.
I have always been curious about the carry the state assumption because the candidate is from that state. I realize he may have campaign workers there... but I think you need a candidate who will swing - the swing voters. My analysis would be who are the voters up for grabs in N.J. Would Huntsman pull more or Christie... etc. Christie cements your base in NJ but does he get more votes than another vp pick. By the way so far Christie seems like the kind of guy we need... so I am not picking on him... just an example.
From what I saw of the candidate forum it was indeed much better than the usual debates. They actually gave all the candidates equal time, rather than have the journalists decide who the legitimate candidates are. What a bizarre concept!
I think the concept is that the candidate has already demonstrated the ability to win a state-wide office in that state. The voters already know who he is and presumably like him. This is a huge problem for Santorum, because he lost big as an incumbent in his last Senate race. There were mitigating factors, but losing does not demonstrate an ability to carry the state for the ticket. At first blush, you would think the strongest possible republican ticket would be Romney-Christie. It would put three blue states into play, as Romney grew up in Michigan where his dad ran the old American Motors. The downside however is that republicans must carry the entire South to have a shot. Obama carried NC and Va last time, so they cannot be considered locks, plus there is Florida, which is absolutely essential. It's a tough decision. If the candidate is Romney, I think he has to go with Rubio. If it is Perry or Bachmann, then Christie becomes very attractive. If it is Gingrich, then it seems to be a tossup to me.
Christie has already emphatically stated he will not run as VP, and i believe him on this one. He would basically be putting his shot at president in someone elses hands, and he also said that he wouldnt make a good VP cause he needs to be in charge. Christie will not run as VP, i promise you on that one.