Reaction to First Republican Debate

Seven candidates for the Republican nomination for President of the United States squared off in Manchester NH tonight.  New Hampshire is the first state to hold a primary contest for this office, and the second (after Iowa) to hold any presidential nominating contest.

Clearly, the big issue was the economy.  They all pointed out that President Obama has not provided the "hope and change" that he promised, particularly with jobs and the deficit.  All seemed to agree, to varying degrees, that the federal government should stay as much as possible out of Americans' lives.  Most candidates believe there are too many regulations on businesses and that government is simply hindering economic growth, but others like Rep. Ron Paul (TX) go as far as to say that the government is actually causing the economic problems (most notably the Federal Reserve).

On the other side of the coin, though, candidates are OK with government regulating social issues.  Five of the seven candidates declared that they would support a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman, despite gay marriage being legal in 13 states.  Businessman Herman Cain (GA) and Ron Paul were the only two who believe that it should be an issue entirely left up to the states.  Rep. Michelle Bachmann (MN) actually said both, which left me totally confused.

Top three points where I agree:

1. Ron Paul: If you can't pay for your health care, you shouldn't get treatment at a hospital.  It's one thing if you can't get insurance: there's a role for government there (my opinion, not his).  But if you refuse to buy insurance and you get sick, I have no sympathy of you.
2. Former Governor Mitt Romney (MA): We need to think about what (in the budget) we need to keep, not what we need to cut.  The deficit is out of control, and it needs to be taken care of fast; this mentality can help it get trimmed more quickly.
3. Herman Cain: Social Security should move towards a personal account system.  This would help to give people motivation to save on their own while reducing payroll taxes (one of the few taxes that actually does hinder jobs).

Top three points where I disagree:

1. 5 of 7 candidates: The definition of marriage should be defined in the US Constitution.  Romney claimed that America is supposed to be nation built on religious tolerance, and that includes the ability to marry who you love.  Full stop.
2. Herman Cain: He said he would not be comfortable having a Muslim in his administration because there are non-friendly Muslims.  Ummm... there are non-friendly individuals in every religion (and every non-religion, if you want to go there).
3. Former Senator Rick Santorum (PA): We might need a greater number of military bases overseas.  The military currently makes up a huge portion of the US budget, and because of the large number of bases already out there, that's among the easiest things to cut.

I'm actually surprised that the other candidates did not attack Mitt Romney, who was governor of Massachusetts when a health care mandate, which President Obama claims is similar to his plan, was passed in the state.  I was expecting a number of the small-government republicans to try to make the two plans look the same, and make Romney look like he supported the plan.

As for the big question: who is electable?  Mitt Romney seemed to appeal to moderate Republicans, while Michelle Bachmann will probably be the choice of the Tea Party faction (assuming Palin doesn't enter the race).  They both have enough of a name recognition within their respective factions, and could be seen as being most consistent with their respective views.  Depending on which of these factions turn out in better numbers in the primaries, either of them could win the nomination.  As for who could beat Obama, Republicans should look for a more centrist candidate to attract Independent voters while still contrasting with President Obama, and based on what I saw tonight, Mitt Romney has the best chance at doing this.