The Republican presidential debate on CNN on Monday night surprisingly boasted truly conservative candidates.
Rep. Michele Bachmann proved she was a serious contender. All of her responses were carefully worded and eloquent, and she remained poised, yet tough. She showed viewers her compassionate side by bringing up her five biological and 23 foster children, and she flaunted her intellectual and tough side by mentioning her position in the House Select Committee on Intelligence.
One of the most powerful aspects about Bachmann is that she understands the importance of listening. When she discussed America’s involvement in Libya, she made clear that her views on the situation were based on findings of people more experienced than she. While Bachmann is smart, neither she nor any other politician knows everything.
Bachmann definitely showed that she not only talked the talk, but also walked the walk. It’s popular for Republicans to oppose the Troubled Asset Relief Program now, but some voted for it in 2008, including Sen. John McCain. Bachmann rightly brought up her vote against the program.
Taking into consideration her status as the underdog entering the debate and her outstanding performance during it, Bachmann benefited most from the debate and was the clear winner.
As the front-runner, Gov. Mitt Romney tactfully defended his record against attacks. When accused of having a health care plan similar to President Obama’s, he cleverly noted specific drawbacks of Obama’s plan not found in Massachusetts, like raising taxes. Romney’s solid performance grounded his position as the front runner.
Sen. Rick Santorum and Hermain Cain performed well. Nothing more, nothing less.
Gov. Tim Pawlenty clearly did his homework. His responses were well-crafted and filled with details. But he was a disappointment.
When given a chance to attack Romney on his health care plan, Pawlenty cowered. The day before, Pawlenty criticized the plan by labeling it “Obamneycare” but was too scared to confront Romney face to face.
If Pawlenty can’t confront his own party, how does he expect to stand up to corrupt leaders like Hugo Chavez, Kim Jong-il or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? We don’t need another Jimmy Carter.
Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich reaffirmed himself as an intellectual capable of making well-informed decisions on policy. Although he was justified in defending his earlier comments about Rep. Paul Ryan’s Medicare plan being “right-wing social engineering,” he came across as a grumpy old man.
Despite his weak points, his overall strong performance probably wasn’t enough for him to recover from his abysmal start in the presidential race.
Rep. Ron Paul would have performed much better if he hadn’t expressed such a dictatorial view of the president as commander-in-chief. Instead of listening to his generals before making decisions on the military, he “wouldn’t wait for [his] generals. [He’s] the commander in chief.”
The president’s power to make final decisions on military actions should be used when officials are divided on the right course of action. For Paul to disregard what generals tell him is like a patient thinking he knows better than the doctor.
The most notable aspect of the entire debate was the candidates’ beliefs in traditional, conservative principles.
Maybe the Republican Party has finally grasped that running a moderate candidate like McCain does not work.
Austin Casey is a 19-year-old medical physics junior from Mandeville. Follow Austin Casey on Twitter @TDR_Austincasey.
——
Contact Austin Casey at [email protected]