Here is our take on where the Republican candidates stand after last night’s debate:
Perry: His debate performance last night showed that he had learned something from previous poor performances. Unfortunately, it wasn’t enough for him to stand out in a positive way.
As promised, Perry did not allow himself to be constrained so much by the debate’s rules, showing his more pugnacious side against Romney. But pugnacity is not always a virtue. His attack on Romney’s supposed hiring of illegal immigrants was simply a low blow, and belittled Perry.
When Romney attacked Perry on immigration – arguing that it was somehow his fault or a bad thing that Texas had more illegal immigration than other states — Perry failed to knock the cover off this softball. He could have knocked it out of the park by pointing out that illegal immigrants are coming to Texas and not California or Florida because there’s work in Texas. Instead, he rambled. When hit by Rick Santorum over his support of TARP, expressed in a letter Perry sent to Congress at the time of the vote, Perry dissembled.
Perry gives a speech as well as anyone. But his debate performances so far have painfully taught voters that Perry simply cannot think on his feet. The proliferation of debates in this campaign season has served to highlight this weakness.
Cain: Herman Cain has come so far so fast that his campaign looks like a book tour that has gotten out of hand. He has surged in all polls, but lacks the sort of campaign infrastructure you would expect from a frontrunner. This serves as a reminder that he leads only by the good graces of conservatives who hate Mitt Romney enough to take a chance on a true dark horse with no political experience.
Cain’s performance did not stand out as particularly bad, but he still hasn’t established that he is for real to a Republican base currently playing a game of musical chairs among non-Romney candidates. Cain’s favorables are formidable, which prevents others from attacking him. He received kind praise from Gingrich last night, to robust applause. But Cain could simply wither if another u-Romney emerges.
Santorum: Speaking of which, there’s always Rick Santorum. He was forceful and eloquent last night. He hit Romney as well and effectively as anyone, and repeatedly articulated conservatism better than the other candidates. Where Rick Perry has so far failed to draw Romney’s blood on health care, Santorum succeeded.
He still has serious problems with likability and electability (he lost his 2006 reelection by 18 points), but if Cain fades as the latest anti-Romney, Santorum could be next in line.
Romney: Romney wasn’t perfect in Vegas, but he was good enough. Although the polls often don’t show this, Romney is the frontrunner. Ideally, he would stay positive, but the GOP field isn’t letting him. So, he hits back hard, and deftly, leaving the impression that he could fare pretty well in a debate against Obama next fall.
His greatest fumble came when he lost his cool and shouted down an interrupting Rick Perry. Neither man came out of that exchange looking particularly good.
He had a gentler touch with Herman Cain, whom he would love to see perform well in Iowa. Despite Perry’s dire condition, Romney understands that the Texas governor has a lot of money and still represents the most serious long-run threat for now. His new anti-Perry video is a sign that he won’t stop stabbing until Perry is all dead.
Bachmann: Has she given up? Bachmann a few times passed on opportunities to attack her rivals, again and again bringing it back to boilerplate attacks on Obama . If she had some particular history or success in battling Obama this would seem like a sensible campaign strategy. Instead, from a faltering candidate, it looks like someone running a bit too hard for Vice President.
Paul: He was on his game in this debate, displaying none of the muddle-headed qualities that have previously undermined his performances. His invocation of Iran Contra as an example of dealing with terrorists silenced the debate hall, primarily because he was right. Paul also articulated a position on Israel that is both consistent with his own principles and less offensive to Evangelical audiences than his usual shtick — stop funding them and leave them alone.
Paul has little to prove to anyone in these debates, with nearly all GOP primary voters decided in advance how they feel about him. The success of his campaign depends entirely on his ability to get sympathizers to the caucuses in Iowa.
Gingrich: If nothing else, he has thoroughly rehabilitated his image with this campaign, which is no small feat. He is now the professor on stage, the second moderator. He doesn’t whine, attack, or filibuster, and other candidates eagerly vie for his praise. Time will tell whether his recent and modest rise in the polls sticks.
Huntsman: He skipped the debate, out of protest against Nevada’s attempts to undermine New Hampshire’s first-in-the-nation primary. It would be difficult to say that anyone missed him.
