Huntsman: Little Jon finally stood up to big brother Mitt last night, showing some real spark for the first time in all of these debates. Foreign policy is the forte of the foreign ambassador, and it’s also an issue where he distinguishes himself — standing almost alone in the vast territory between the uber-Hawks and Ron Paul. Now would be the time for Hunstman to make his move. Let’s see if he can do it.
Gingrich: Newt said he was willing to take the heat for embracing a partial pro-amnesty position on immigration. He probably should have been more careful about what he asked for. His was otherwise a very solid debate performance, maybe the smartest, most knowledgable, and most articulate debater on the stage. Even his immigration comments, identical in substance to the ones that got Rick Perry in so much trouble, were so artfully made that those in the room expressed no objection.
Alas, the Washington insiders in that room last night largely agreed with Gingrich. In that respect, they have little in common with Iowa GOP caucus-goers. For now, the immigration issue has to be considered a serious weakness for Gingrich, and one that will likely resonate far more powerfully than his lobbying career. Only time will tell how bad a weakness it is.
Romney: It seems Romney’s campaign motto must be “Slow and steady wins the race.” In the foreign policy debate, Romney did nothing to stand out, stylistically or ideologically. While Perry called for new wars, Gingrich showed independence, Hunstman got feisty, and Ron Paul was Ron Paul, Romney calmly laid out a standard conservative Republican foreign policy, particularly one that would appeal to the AEI-Heritage crowd at the debate.
Perry: Were he still at the top of the Iowa field, this would have been a great debate for Rick Perry. As a candidate who now occupies the low single-digit slot that Newt Gingrich vacated some time ago, it really wasn’t much to write home about. Perry’s only chance at this point involves ruthless negativity against his primary opponents, particularly Newt Gingrich. He didn’t display it, and understandably so. One can only cringe at the thought of Perry taking on Gingrich head to head.
Paul: The folks in the cheap seats at the DC debate loved Paul’s non-interventionist foreign policy grounded in the Constitution’s limits on federal power. While the GOP base is getting more dovish, they haven’t gotten all the way to Ron Paul’s foreign policy. They probably won’t, and in last night’s debate, he surely won approving nods from liberals, but those Republicans disposed to agree with him on war &peace are already behind him.
Bachmann: She turned in a pretty decent debate performance. Given her opportunity to attack Newt Gingrich on immigration, she took it. Her answers on some foreign policy questions demonstrated that she actually pays attention during intelligence committee briefings. But it was nothing like what she needs to rescue her campaign from the oblivion it has suffered since her victory in the straw poll at Ames.
Santorum: His embrace of the profiling of Muslims in airports was somewhat jarring. It might win him some votes in Iowa, but it probably won’t help him anywhere else.
Cain: Cain not only delivered a pie that lacked all toppings, but he also held the cheese — and the sauce. Were Cain the front-runner, as some considered him when he led the polls two weeks back, an error-free performance on foreign policy would have been a victory-through-not-messing-up. Cain has consistently been the least knowledgable candidate on most policy issues, especially foreign policy. Last night he did nothing to display ignorance, which is a victory of sorts. But there is still no reason to believe Cain can rebound in this election, and an utterly forgettable debate performance sure doesn’t help.
