Tea Party View of the Republican Debate

GOP candidates Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, Tim Pawlenty, Mitt Romney, Jon Huntsman Jr. and Rick Santorum debated on Fox News last night. There were a few "tea party" take aways and a few gaffes of note. The majority of the debate was correctly focused upon defining differences between the candidates.

Fellow SLOB WC Varones noticed Democrats jumping on Mitt Romney's "corporations are people, too" statement last night. Many small business owners are S-Corporation, so despite mock outrage by leftist fundraisers, it seems minor.

Tim Pawlenty did not come across well in his argument with Michelle Bachmann. Particularly when she miscommunicated her choice to vote for a Pawlenty pro-life bill that included a tax increase. Rep. Bachmann  made the mistake, and it was clearly a bad choice of wording, but Gov. Pawlenty piled on acting as if she had voted pro-choice despite a tax increase.  This may have seemed good politic but it was just small.

Michelle Bachmann made another mistake that had actual substance to Tea Partiers. In a question about ORomneyCare she failed to point out the difference between federal constitutional powers and state constitutional powers.  Reporters may think that is wonkish, but Tea Party members are extremely savvy about the constitution.

Amendment 10, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."  Rep. Bachmann is correct in her answer that neither the federal or state governments have unlimited powers. The mistake was in not communicating that individual states are closer to the people and more empowered to make policy decisions of such consequence. Citizens can leave a state.  Her answer leads one to believe that she would repeal ObamaCare, but then proceed to repeal RomneyCare and other similar state laws.  The Tea Party would support that political position nationally but may not at the state level.

One good moment in the debate was had by Newt Gingrich as he explained the problem with the "super congress." Speaker Gingich railed against the Washington idiocy of leaving the entire congress idol while political appointees decide how to make congress choose between "shoot you in the head or cut off your right leg." The former speaker made it clear that he is in the race for patriotic reasons but may have no intention of being the final candidate.

The debate "Tea Party take aways" include both politics and economics. 

On the economic front, the Obama Depression is not going to end due to anticipation of a conservative president. Consumer sentiment is shockingly low and the "90 days after I am elected" fix is not enough. By the time we retire our vacuous Present-ent Obama, the economy will be in the unimaginably bad shape.

On the political front, the majority of the available candidates are major upgrades from our current president. The other candidates are just significant upgrades.  Mitt Romney is still the front runner. Newt is the Ed McMahon to everyone else's Johnny and will bring up excellent points before bowing out. Bachmann is the "had enough" candidate. Cain is the most likable. Ron Paul is the purest in constitutional original intent.  Santorum and Pawlety are reasonable but interchangeable and establishment. Huntsman has credibility but is hard to relate to. Palin and Perry will need to triangulate with withdrawing candidates in order to succeed. 

Pay close attention to any "progressive" policies in the candidates. Issues that candidates do not passionately embrace are going to be "negotiables."  Lets each be sure to choose the correct "negotiables" in the primaries.