TELEVISION A POWERHOUSE, EVEN IN THE NEW MEDIA ERA

2008 TV

Obama benefited from his cash dominance in 2008. In the last week of that campaign, Obama spent $23.6 million on TV; McCain spent just $4.8 million. About 5 to 1. One study claims TV dominance creates as much as a 6% shift in voting [summary here]. Think about Obama’s 53% victory in Colorado; take away 6%.

That 6% level of boost, that the experts found, comes close to the bump Obama got post-convention. The same study found TV ads influence a viewer/voter significantly for a week (and less significantly for a few days after). And that explains why a convention bounce is short-lived.

One more point about 2008: McCain was profoundly behind in polls during those last critical weeks. As a result, plenty of Republicans stayed home.

Colorado TV and Polls – 2012

Here’s ads aired in Colorado (4/25 – 9/8), including all buyers:

                        Denver | Elsewhere

Romney          | 10,970 | 16,270

Obama           | 15,258 | 15,245

Total               | 26,228 | 31,515

 Obama Edge   | 4,288  | -1,025

Obama’s Lead  | 16%   |     -3%

Obama led in metro TV ad buys, with a near tie elsewhere.

During the weeks of the two national conventions, Obama’s forces put up 4,400 ads in Colorado. Romney had 1,800. Obama’s TV blitz fueled his poll numbers, not the public’s reaction to the conventions. Consider that the five Colorado polls taken in the first 15 days of August showed Obama ahead by a scant 0.6%, a statistical tie. [Special thanks to Wesleyan Media co-director and Washington State University Professor Travis N. Ridout for the Colorado data.]

Again, the Obama TV blitz paid off in about a 3% boost here in Colorado. Sadly for the MSM meme, the Denver Post’s SurveyUSA results show that burp in the polls is nearly a thing of the past. Instead of +5% for Obama (in the three days after the Dems’ convention), SurveyUSA has Obama exactly where he was before the blitz. And Rasmussen (9/17) shows Romney now ahead.

This shows the incredible power of cash when transformed into a crushing TV ad buy. What can we expect in the next seven weeks?

  • TOMORROW: ROMNEY ON THE MARCH
  • SATURDAY: FACTORS FOR OBAMA?
 

Ménage à trois

Ménage à trois

It’s the economy stupid; but more to the point it’s what do we do about the economy that will be the consequences of the next election.  Do we adopt the Democratic solution of tax and spend, drive it like it is stolen solution?  Will the American people opt for the tough love Tea Party model that basically translates into; ‘we have to stop spending before we can even think about paying off the national debt’? Or will the voters choose the Republican strategy which at the moment appears to be, slash everything with a ‘D’ connected to it, shift the tax burden to the middle class and implement trickle down prosperity?  

Of course the state of the economy will determine the outcome and the consequences, and there’s no magic formula the people can use in making their choice.  We are in uncharted waters that abound with dangerous reefs.  The European mess threatens the domino effect and one of the side effects of the European cure may end up being worse than the disease.

However unlikely a single EU government may appear to be, it will be a necessity to the “cure” that may destabilize the entire continent (if it fails or if it succeeds) with European investors flocking to find safe havens in the dollar, (if we’re lucky) or perhaps in the Chinese currency if that nation’s recent efforts to globalize it’s currency is successful.  The result will be a battle for the status of world reserve currency and the dominoes will fall, with global trade wars and tariffs as the sign posts in the race to the bottom.

The great unknown that threatens to spin the whole process out of control are the higher expectations of an American population watching the deterioration of their standard of living accelerate.  With no relief in sight and the best laid plans of both political parties producing only unintended consequences in a timeline of rapidly diminishing windows of opportunity.  Do-overs are a luxury our economy can no longer afford.  

Post election, the last man standing will have to get it right the first time, every time; and even then success or failure will hinge on the patience of the long suffering American people and an evolving sense of self restraint in our elected officials, which at this point in the process does not appear very promising.

Enter the TEA Party effect; the back to the fundamentals of government, downsizing and the bite the bullet economic strategy, with more than enough pain to go around.  The coming election will be a referendum on the character of the American people and on the future inheritance of their grandchildren.  The only certainty is that there will be no do-overs.  Choose wisely.  

 

Mesa County GOP Convention Narrows Commissioner Race

Published on March 25, 2012 by

The Mesa County Republican Party held their convention today, March 24th at the Avalon Theater in Grand Junction.

The main event was the election of county Commissioner nominees for Districts 1 and 3, currently held by Craig Meis, and one time Lieutenant Governor Candidate Janet Rowland. Both are term limited.

In the crowded District 1 field, Fruita mayor Ken Henry and Fruita area farmer John Justman came out ahead of their opponents, garnering 43% and 40% of the Delegates votes respectively. Both men will be on the June 26th Primary Ballot.

Area Realtor Ed Stephens finished with 54 votes, or 14%, with businessman and rancher Wes D’Aponti trailing the slate with 2%.

Kristi Flynn, who has opted to forego the convention route and petition onto the ballot instead, receive one write in vote.
Henry said that in an interview that the Primary race will show Mesa county Republican voters the differences in perspective between him and his opponent.

“My opponent has been constantly critical of Fruita, and what we have done there”, Henry said, referring to the recently opened Fruita Recreational Center. Although the City-backed center drew heat from some in the community, including Fruita gym-business owners, Henry points out that it was approved by a majority of Fruita residents, and has been a great success.

He also cautioned against the idea of “cut, cut, cut,”, and took on what he called a more “realistic attitude towards governance.”

“We need to be careful that we understand just what the County can do, and what it should not be doing” Henry said, pointing to an ongoing issue of the unincorporated, but densely populated Clifton area, which relies heavily on Mesa County for traditionally maniple level services. Henry also said that his main focus will be jobs. “While my opponent talks about Obamacare, that is not within the purview of a County Commissioner to directly address. The facts are that the problems that a County Commissioner can and must deal with are job growth and economic development.”

Justman said that he was thrilled to be on the ballot, and made a point to thank his wife, who has been a “constant source of advice, support and assistance”.

Justman also said that he was “more conservative” than his opponent, and that he was a staunch supporter of private property rights.

“From what I have seen in Fruita, I can’t say that (Mayor Henry) is.”

Ed Stephens said he would not seek to petition onto the ballot, pointing out that it was “difficult to raise funds” that way, and that with the deadline to collect signatures a scant 11 days away, that there probably was simply not enough time.

On the other end of the Valley, the contest to replace Rowland as commissioner from District 3 resulted in Palisade lawyer Rose Pugliese running away with 58% of the votes, followed by retired businessman Woody Walcher with 27%, and realtor and former city council member Paul Nelson brining in 14%.

Pugliese, the 32 year-old business owner, attorney, and 2011 LPR graduate said that she was happy to be going forward, and that she was ready to face her Democratic opponent for the seat.

“My campaign will not change,” Pugliese said, indicating that her priorities remain the same now as they did in the run up to the county Convention.

“My priorities are the budget, public safety, working with business owners, and getting government out of the way of job creation and productivity.”

During her speech to the convention Delegates, Pugliese, with around two dozen supporters backing her on stage, said that for every issue that came before her she would ask “is this the proper role of government?” citing as an example public safety as being the primary legitimate function of government.

She said that Nelson had told her he would not seek to petition onto the ballot. Walcher said that he had not as yet decided if he would pursue that option. Party rules allow a candidate who has received less than 30%, but more than 10% of the delegate vote at the Convention to seek the nomination through petition.

Barring a petition-nominated primary race, Pugliese will face Democrat David Edwards in the November general election.

 

The Meaning of the Caucuses

Published on February 10, 2012 by

By Kelly Sloan

It is easy to write caucuses off as irrelevant in the Presidential nomination process – and in a strictly practical sense they are, as no actual delegates to a national convention are actually secured. But caucuses and other non-binding referenda do nonetheless have a role to play, even beyond their much-acclaimed assignment as popular political barometer.

Rick Santorum dominated the stage Tuesday night, gathering victories in Minnesota, Missouri and Colorado, three states which hold caucuses; or in the case of Minnesota (a state known as much for its quirkiness as its excellent freshwater fishing opportunities and phenomenal snowdrifts), a non-binding primary.

There are a couple of reasons for Santorum’s strong finish; first, many rank and file Republicans are itching for a solid conservative to throw against Obama, in the mold of a Reagan or a Goldwater; Santorum seems to have successfully defined himself as that more conservative option to Mitt Romney. Newt Gingrich had, of course, tried to claim that mantle, but his unfiltered habit of communicating every thought that enters his (admittedly exceptional) mind, has most likely cost him that opportunity.
The main reason for Santorum’s victories stems from that; Republican voters in non-binding contests, such as caucuses, tend to choose the most conservative candidate on the menu. The nature of such contests afford voters the luxury of prioritizing principles and convictions over more strategic qualities which tend to fall under the umbrella category of “electability”.

Of course, conviction and electability are not necessarily mutually exclusive, and historically actually complement one another; nevertheless, voters, whose fear of a second Obama term may have otherwise trumped their concerns over Romney’s fealty to conservative principles, tend to feel more liberated to put their hand up for a candidate on strictly ideological grounds when they know in the back of their minds that their decision carves nothing in stone.

So what, then, might last Tuesdays events, commonly derided as “beauty contests”, actually accomplish, beyond consigning newly selected delegates to state and county conventions to a merciless deluge of haranguing by various candidates and candidate committees?

Non-binding or not, the caucuses serve as a campaign’s evaluation tool; a way for a candidate to officially ask “how am I doing?”

The answer, in Mitt Romney’s case, is “you could be doing better”.

Tuesday’s results show that many Republicans are not yet fully convinced of Romney’s conservative bona fides.  And given his overly-cautious approach to the issues, it is difficult at times to blame them.

The lesson Romney ought to absorb from this is that an enthusiastic projection of core conservative principles is required to earn the nomination.  The results should force Romney to adopt a much bolder platform, one that offers comprehensive and systemic entitlement reform, specific program and departmental cuts, aggressive tax overhaul, and a clear program for dismantling the administrative state that has developed over the past 50 years, and restoring the systems of checks and balances and federalism upon which this country was designed.

Romney also needs to assure Republicans that he really is a conservative on other fronts as well. His silence on one of the most potent issues of the day – the HHS mandate forcing individuals and organizations (most notably Catholics) to offer and purchase health care plans that violate their most closely held moral and religious codes – is not helping in this regard. This is a defining issue, which can unite conservatives, and others, in principled opposition; while the specifics of this case are socially moral questions – revolving around services such as abortion and contraception – the overarching offense transcends one’s personal views on those matters by attacking a fundamental pillar of the American system – the freedom of religion, and the right of an individual not to be forced to do something which violates his or her faith. It is an issue which a conservative ought to be chomping at the bit to engage.

Similarly, the 9th Circuit Court’s recent usurpation of the voters of California affords Romney the opportunity to address the topic of judicial activism – a critical subject since one of the most enduring and consequential responsibilities of the post he is applying for involves nominating supreme Court Justices.

In short, the primary system, including the caucuses, is performing as it should, shaping and honing the candidacies of those who would aspire to be entrusted with the chief executive position in the entity that remains civilizations greatest political and economic achievement. Should Romney choose to learn from the results – and I believe he is capable – the nomination can still be his. If not, Santorum has emerged as a worthy alternate.

 

OH GOODY! Is 2012 In Colorado Going To Be A Rehash Of Bill Ritter’s New Energy Economy?

Yesterday, when Obama arrived at Buckley Air Force Base for his third taxpayer-funded campaign speech in Colorado, Governor Hickenlooper was nowhere to be found. He was conveniently in Switzerland, leaving Obama stuck with former one term Governor Bill Ritter to be his clean energy cheerleader.

Ritter's role was fitting seeing that Obama's campaign speech was a virtual rehash of Ritter's New Energy Economy talking points. And his speech got about the same reception that Bill Ritter did as Governor — namely, silence. 

At one point Obama actually had to ask the audience to applaud

You almost expected him to tap the mic and ask "is this thing on?"

Call it a dud of a speech, but don't call it a campaign speech. At least not according to Bill Ritter, who tried to tell The Denver Post's Kurtis Lee that it was about policy not re-election, only to have Lee laugh in his face.

In a speech that was supposed to focus on his energy policy, Obama forgot to mention the two biggest names in the US energy policy debate right now — Solyndra and Keystone XL. 

What he did talk about was another litany of things government should do to invest in green energy — like continuing the wind industry subsidy of $22 per megawatt hour — subsidies that will translate into campaign cash from clean energy company recipients to Obama's re-election campaign. 

He also pushed the idea of 10 gigawatts of renewable energy power being produced on federal lands — an idea that The Denver Post's Mark Jaffe throws cold water on as unattainable

As Obama made his energy speech in Colorado you would think he would throw the Centennial State some business with federal dollars for his new programs. No go, says the Post's Jaffe, who ends his article noting "there are no Colorado projects on the list, and the BLM has had little interest expressed by developers in the state."

Obama's speech didn't leave Tyler Q. Houlton, President of Compass Colorado impressed. Houlton said in a press release:

“President Obama and his crony Ken Salazar have failed to help reduce America’s dependence on foreign oil and lower gas prices for hardworking Colorado families.

Overbearing regulations on America’s energy producers, taxpayer handouts to corrupt energy companies like Solyndra, and soaring gas prices have defined Obama’s first term in office.”

If 2012 in Colorado is going to be about Barack Obama rehashing Bill Ritter's failed political agenda, then conservatives are in for a treat. 

Bill Ritter's New Energy Economy was so popular he didn't even run for a second term. Ritter himself had his ass handed to him in a debate at New York University over whether green energy can help America break out of the recession. (Watch our 5 min highlight reel from the debate drubbing here)

Everyone loves the idea of the sun and the wind powering our cars and heating our homes. The only problem is that the technology isn't there yet and when politicians force renewable energy through mandates and other legislation it ends up jacking up Colorado's electricity bills by 21% and creating failed companies like Solyndra. 

If that is what Colorado will be talking about during Obama's re-election campaign, then Obama might want to start looking for his next job now.


 

Some Perspective on the GOP Candidates

Published on December 16, 2011 by

By Kelly Sloan

For all the hand-wringing, soul searching, and despair evident among some conservative Republicans contemplating the 2012 GOP Presidential slate, the lineup is really a testimony to the success of the conservative movement over the last 60 years.

Though we may squabble over the relative merits or apostasies of one candidate or another, it is helpful to remind ourselves that compared with the wide disparities between its conservative and liberal wings in the 50′s 60′s and 70′s, the current Republican Party is remarkably united around a predominantly conservative nucleus.

Certainly there are no strong vestiges of the old liberal, Rockefeller wing of the Republican Party in evidence any longer, at least not in the slate of Presidential candidates that populate the stage every couple of nights or so. Even most of today’s moderate Republicans are at least nominally well to the right of characters like Nelson Rockefeller, Thomas Dewey or Richard Nixon.

This is no accident. The conservative resurgence orchestrated in the 1950′s and 60′s by such giants as F.A. Hayek, William Buckley, Frank Meyer, Russell Kirk, and others, gave voice, form, and purpose to the millions who had become disenchanted by the excesses of the New Deal, and even more so with the pervasive Republican accomodationism of the day (which by comparison makes Republican compromises in the last 20 years look like obdurate entrenchment). This set up the test pilot candidacy of Barry Goldwater, to whom conservatives in the early to mid-60′s looked to for Mosaic guidance out of the political desert.  
His failure to win the White House was a crushing disappointment for many right-wingers who felt they finally had, after a long absence, a standard bearer. But the campaign accomplished its greater purpose, fulfilling its role as a sort of a boot camp for what would become the Reagan army.

Every Presidential election since 1988 has prompted a lamentful wail from Republican’s pining for “the next Reagan”. It goes without saying that the Gipper is not going to run again, save perhaps by some form of providential proxy. But one of Reagans finest legacy’s was his transformation of the Republican Party into a truly conservative one – virtually every Republican candidate for office, and certainly every Republican Presidential candidate, for the past two decades, has invoked the essence of Ronald Reagan to one degree or another. His ideals have been etched into the GOP platform; his name, and the axiological, unabashed conservatism he represented, has become synonymous with the Republican brand, if not always closely adhered to — in response to which, in part, the Tea Party emerged to help ensure the GOP remains anchored on the right.

All of which has come together to create a pool of candidates who, in the main, are all fairly conservative, differing only in temperament and detail on most issues. All are talking about entitlement reform to one extent or another. All speak of substantive tax reform. All speak of the principles of federalism, and returning the balance of power to the states. All seem to recognize the ball and chain effect of an engorged federal bureaucracy. Most recognize the healthy role of Judeo-Christianity in the public square. All claim fealty to the constitution. All, save Ron Paul, display a realistic appreciation of foreign affairs and America’s role in the world, coupled with a prudent dedication to America’s national security.

This is not to suggest that there do not remain areas of concern; conservatives are, for instance, justifiably uneasy (to say the least), about Newt Gingrich’s fetish for the use of government programs to effect desirable results where such results would be better accomplished by the marketplace. He has a long record of affection for government incentivisation, especially through the use of tax policy, which many conservatives would be quite accurate in characterizing as, to borrow a phrase, “right wing social engineering”.

Gingrich’s predilection for achieving conservative aims through government macro-management (as opposed to liberals attempt to effect radical changes through government micromanagement) is reminiscent of the “big government conservatism” often practiced by George W. Bush, with the same pitfalls; a temptation to assign to a central political intelligence, questions which ought to remain the province of private enterprise and free markets.

And yet, this from the man who gave us the “Contract With America”, and helped bring about welfare reform and balanced federal budgets.

The point really is that while each GOP candidate has flaws, some of which warrant close scrutiny and explanation, each, too, is easily conservative enough to offer a desirable alternative to the present. It should not be surprising that there exists some turbulence within a political affiliation that so steadfastly resists definition. But it would be tragic if it resulted in complicity towards the appalling consequences of a second Obama administration.

 

YOU’LL BE HEARING THAT AGAIN: Obama Says Country “Not Better Off” Than 4 Years Ago

President Reagan's communication skills have got President Obama in hot water again. In the 2008 primary against Hillary Clinton he praised Reagan's oratory, much to the chagrin of his liberal base. Now the Great Communicator's words are back and they are sure to haunt Obama all the way to the day he packs up and leaves the White House in 2013.

During an interview with ABC's George Stephanopolous, Obama referenced Reagan's famous line asking voters if they were better off than they were four years ago, only he admitted they weren't better off. That's tantamount to admitting the failure of his policies — certainly not a line his campaign in Chicago would hope he would utter.

While Democrat operatives let out a collective groan of frustration at the poorly chosen words, Republicans were rejoicing across the country. In what is sure to become the focus of more than a few campaign commercials, Obama made the Republican's case for them succinctly in a single sentence. 

Poll after poll shows this race is going to come down to jobs and the economy. Voters will choose the candidate who they think best affords them the opportunity to get back to work, to get the economy out of the worst slump since the Great Depression. Obama's statement that people are "not better off" than when they first elected him is exactly what Republicans will hammer him for in endless rounds of robocalls, TV ads and radio spots.

Thanks to Obama, they'll be able to use his own words to make that case.

Since Governor Hickenlooper has had a successful min-career this cycle as pundit-in-chief for Colorado Democrats on Obama's electoral future, we wonder what he thinks. Are Coloradans better off than they were 4 years ago?


 

Democrats Off to Early, Mendacious Start in CD 3 Race

Published on August 1, 2011 by

With only about 460 days left until the 2012 general election, the race for Colorado’s 3rd Congressional District is well underway. Former Democratic State House Minority Leader Sal Pace announced his candidacy to challenge Republican incumbent Scott Tipton on May 31st, an announcement that had already been rendered old news when Steny Hoyer apparently let his excitement get the better of him, and leaked the information some time earlier.

So far, Pace is the only Democrat to enter the fray. Dr. Perry Haney, a Democrat and Greenwood Village chiropractor, is intent on running for Congress somewhere in Colorado, but isn’t quite sure where yet. His Haney For Congress webpage says he is waiting so see how the redistricting maps turn out, though he does mention Tipton rather obsessively in his Facebook rants, has bought a UPS box in Grand Junction to establish roots, and has traipsed over the hills and vales of the 3rd CD as though he were serious. Until he becomes so…

There was much talk earlier in the year regarding a possible bid from State Senator Gail Schwartz. But Schwartz’s lock-step support for the Democrats redistricting map that split the western slope in two, placing such communities as Grand Junction with (of all places) Boulder, may have effectively assassinated that plan. Besides, unlike the state’s Republicans, Colorado Democrats probably do not feel the need to emasculate themselves with a bruising primary. That leaves, for the moment at least, Sal Pace.

Accordingly, Pace and the Democrats wasted no time in commencing a bare fisted offensive against Tipton, adumbrating the tone of the election to come. Dutifully following the party edict, and leaving the facts scattered in his tire tracks, Pace went on the road with a mission to terrify the elderly by attempting to portray Tipton as somehow being against Medicare and apple pie, owing to his support for Rep. Paul Ryan’s budget plan. Recall, if you will, the “tossing Grandma off the cliff” ads; as Pace would tell it, it was Tipton personally providing the ultimate nudge – when in fact, not only is Tipton’s support of the Ryan budget keeping grandma at a safe distance from the cliff, but it is tethering her grandchildren against being mercilessly pushed towards the edge by the Democrats status quo approach to entitlements.
All this was abruptly followed by an entirely coincidental airing of radio ads by the Democrat’s optimistically named House Majority PAC which echoed the same sentiments, along with a jab in line with the left’s other attempt to put a crippling blot on Tipton’s escutcheon.

The PAC ad suggests, with a presumably straight face, that the Congressman used undue influence to hire his nephew to do official work for his office. The accusation requires a few mental calisthenics to make the connection; the office of Tipton’s Democrat predecessor, John Salazar, had hired a firm to handle tele-town halls. Tipton’s office simply retained them while changing the nameplates on the desks. This firm subcontracted out some of the work and technological details. One of the sub-contractors was a company for which Tipton’s nephew happened to work. Not exactly a story torn from the script of The Tudors.

For his part, Scott Tipton’s performance in Congress has been stellar – a naturally gifted orator, he has presented eloquent and principled floor speeches. His voting record reflects the staunch conservatism which propelled him to Washington. His defense of his policy positions on cable news and other media outlets demonstrates an intelligence, depth, and reasoning that suggest that those positions are the result of more than a simple application of a cookie cutter ideological template. And he has done a magnificent job as Chairman of the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Energy, and Trade, an assignment that I predict will prove even more crucial in the coming year.

For all that, there remains, a perception at least, that Tipton suffers from something of a communication problem. An often heard complaint is that little word of the good he has accomplished has filtered its way down to the rank and file of the 3rd CD, nor has any parry, let alone counter thrust, against his malfactors been heard. Popular political culture is likely, in part, to blame. A public that has over the last few years grown steadily accustomed to an interminable barrage of information, from talk radio stations, 24-hour cable news, the internet, and, increasingly, from Facebook, Twitter, and other social media, perceives any communications deficit, no matter how temporary, situational, or strategic, as nothing less than deafening silence.

There is, on the other hand, something to be said for a strategy of reservation at this still-early stage. Pace seems intent on playing the hare, so let him. Tipton is wise to keep his money in the bank until needed. But he should still be careful of allowing Pace to set the narrative early on.

There is a balance to be struck. Each unreturned blow that Pace lands is, on some level, a victory. Tipton, as noted above, is a bit of a natural, and therefore can, and should, turn each rhetorical bullet into a ricochet. He should not be spending much cash at this point, but rather should be raising some by marketing himself and his ideas, flooding the internet, Facebook, e-mail boxes, and whatever free media he can, with his reasoned, common sense, conservative message, and displays of his application of it. He does this not just with the usual prepared statements and talking points, but by being, well, Scott Tipton. The Congressman is one of that rare breed of the species who can be turned loose, and trusted to communicate as he did during the campaign, without self-immolating himself politically.

Tipton knows how to do this. And he only has 66 more weeks in which to prove it.

 

THE HUNT FOR SUPERMAN

Published on June 21, 2011 by

Along with practically everybody else, I have been somewhat fixated on the Republican presidential contenders. The predominant catalyst for this widespread interest (aside from the hype-generating political media, which is trying to compete with an American Idol culture) is, of course, the economy, appearing as it is to be caught in an undertow of the present administrations own making.

The numbers sketch a pretty dismal image; unemployment remains over 9%; growth continues to crawl along well short of the post-war 3.4% baseline; home prices continue to decline; gasoline prices crawl ever higher.

The only “good” news out there is that housing and retail sales numbers are not quite as abysmal as predicted.

Toss in the $14 trillion debt (brought on largely by policies which, though billed as economic life preservers, ended up having the same effect on the economy that tossing a sandbag to a floundering swimmer would have on his buoyancy) and the looming spectre of taxes and inflation, and the public is left anxiously looking about for an alternative.

And so, eyes were cast on the first official GOP presidential debate Monday in (where else?) New Hampshire.

As far as the debate itself, it was heartening to see the increased willingness to finally discuss the issue of entitlements, too long considered sacrosanct despite the economic disaster they indicate. The debate’s format left little room for serious discussion of the problem, but the discussion is needed, and it would do both the candidates, and the country, a great service to use this election year as an opportunity to illustrate the harsh realities surrounding these programs, and explore solutions to alleviate the problems.

It was less heartening to note the regrettable lack of discussion on foreign policy, inarguably the president’s primary responsibility. Next time, maybe.

Now as for the candidates:
Monday’s debate cemented Mitt Romney’s position as front-runner. For much of the debate he looked, spoke and acted presidential, and espoused a conservative agenda. That said, he was not challenged in any meaningful way, even when the CNN moderator tried repeatedly to get Gov. Pawlenty to renew his attack on what he termed “Obamneycare” the previous day.

Romneycare will continue to be the albatross around the neck of the former Massachusetts governor, unless he quite emphatically concedes its failure. He is correct in characterizing it as a state issue, subject, quite properly, to experimentation by the states, but until he admits his experiment failed (which he did come a little closer to doing), he will be hopelessly tethered to it.

This debate should have been former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty’s golden opportunity to stand out, one he unfortunately missed. Pawlenty has some admirable strengths, not the least of which is an outstanding economic platform released last week, one that hearkened fond memories of Jack Kemp. He has a stellar conservative record on all fronts, and proven mettle, evidenced, for instance, by campaigning against ethanol subsidies in Iowa, of all places. But he needs to effectively communicate this, and differentiate himself from the other candidates, particularly Romney.

The brightest star in Monday night’s constellation was Michelle Bachman. The Minnesota Congresswoman’s performance Monday moved her up into the top tier, at least for now. She was well spoken, demonstrated a good grasp of the issues, and her decision to announce her candidacy at the debate was political brilliance. She is succeeding in the first thing she had to do, which was to prove that she is not Sarah Palin. She needs to capitalize on this strongly, and in such a way as to convince voters that her lack of governmental executive experience is not an issue – that will be a tough sell, but her intelligence and principled conservatism will continue to add to her appeal.

As for the rest: Gingrich is smart as ever, but past his prime, and saddled with too much baggage; Santorum holds a lot of appeal for conservatives, and is very capable, but needs a supernova moment; Cain’s lack of political experience, however endearing to populists, will be increasingly problematic for him. Ron Paul is, well, Ron Paul.

Bottom line, what is most needed for one of these candidates to win the nomination is to convince the Republican electorate, quite profoundly, of their worthiness to lead this nation out of the abyss. Someone needs to come out with a speech worthy of Henry V, one that would make you as proud to put your mark beside their name as if you had fought on St. Crispin’s Day.

We will be eagerly waiting.

 
© 2011-2013 Colorado Peak Politics