Report Card on the June 13, 2011 Republican Presidential Debate in New Hampshire

Monday, June 13, 2011, St. Anselm College, New Hampshire: Seven Republicans gather for the second in a series of debates leading up to the 2012 Presidential election. Six of these GOP presidential contenders have formally declared their candidacy for the nation's highest office; one of them has not yet thrown a hat into the ring, but has formed an exploratory committee prior to making an official declaration of their candidacy.

CNN, WMUR (a local television station) and St Anselm College jointly sponsored the two-hour debate, which was aired on CNN. It gave viewers across the United States an opportunity to see and hear Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, Tim Pawlenty, Mitt Romney, and Rick Santorum, as they responded to questions asked by news reporters and viewers, and covering a wide variety of issues.

I watched the debate with great interest. I am a moderate independent who voted for Barack Obama in 2008, but whose deep disappointment in President Obama's overall job performance during the past two years has led me to consider other presidential candidates for the 2012 election.

For the most part, I liked what I saw during the debate. Each of the candidates are known quantities with proven records. All of them had obviously prepared well for the debate. They spoke their minds forcefully (with some noticeable exceptions.) They were civil to each other. They stuck to their points without resorting to attacks on their fellow candidates.

Based on notes I took during the debate, here's my "report card" on how each of the candidates fared. (Listed in order, from the most to the least effective):

Mitt Romney: Romney's experience as a campaigner and an executive office-holder were readily on display. He was unflappable throughout. He came across as affable, likeable, and knowledgeable. He looked the other candidates in the eye, and respectfully showed interest in what other candidates were saying. He was always prepared with sharp, intelligent answers to questions from the moderator or audience. His most effective moment: when contrasting "Romneycare" with "Obamacare," he highlighted the fact that his Massachusetts program was a state initiative, and wondered why President Obama didn't call him when trying to get Federal health care reform passed. "I would have told him it wouldn't work." Grade: A-

Michele Bachmann: For me, Representative Michele Bachmann was the pleasant surprise of the evening. Going in to the debate, my expectations for her were low, since she has always been portrayed in the media as "Sarah Palin Light." But she was anything but the smug, sarcastic, ill-informed, inarticulate, grating politician that is Sarah Palin. Bachmann was obviously well prepared, and, like Romney, came across as likeable and pleasant. During this debate, she officially announced her candidacy for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination. Although I don't necessarily agree with her positions on many issues, I found her responses substantive, sharp, articulate, and succinct. If she performs at this level throughout the campaign, avoiding any major gaffes along the way, I believe she will be a formidable contender. Her best moment: pointing out Barack Obama's "lack of leadership" in his handling of the debt ceiling issue. Grade: B+

Rick Santorum: Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum also surprised me with his effectiveness as a debater. He managed to portray himself as a mainstream conservative who isn't beholden to the Tea Party or any other of the myriad of factions within the Republican party. I'm not sure how effectively he managed to position himself as a politician in touch with the middle and working classes of American society. His best moment came when he pointed out, with great eloquence, his consistently pro-life stance. Grade: B+

Newt Gingrich: The former Speaker of the House, with his reputation for providing long-winded, hard-to-understand, philosophical responses to questions, defied my expectations with his short, pithy, and articulate statements that clearly staked out his positions on issues. Still, his keen intellectual acumen was always on display. Unfortunately, he "pulled his punches" on his response to questions about Rep. Paul Ryan's Medicare reform plan. He also came across as a bit of an unsmiling grouch throughout the debate. Grade: C+

Tim Pawlenty: Going in to the debate, my highest hopes were reserved for the former Minnesota governor, whom I consider a fresh face with fresh ideas. His performance was a major letdown. Although his responses were mostly clear and unequivocal, he stumbled badly when he backed away from his previous assertion that Federal health care reform was nothing more than "Obamneycare." Standing right next to Mitt Romney on the stage, Pawlenty had a golden opportunity to look the front-runner in the eye and challenge him. He didn't take up that challenge, and I believe it cost him dearly. Grade: C-

Ron Paul: Congressman Ron Paul is perhaps the most knowledgeable candidate on economic issues, and his formidable grasp of the facts (as he sees them) was readily evident. But his grasp of non-economic issues was, in my view, very poor. He clearly demonstrated that he is out of touch with mainstream Americans on issues of war and peace, faith, gay marriage, and a range of other sensitive social issues. To me, he was the most unlikeable candidate on the stage; his morose, unsmiling demeanor worked against him throughout the debate. Grade: D

Herman Cain: This candidate tried to portray himself as a businessman who can apply common-sense business solutions to the nation's most pressing problems. This he failed to do. His responses were articulate, but were also, for the most part, vague, non-specific, and not well thought out. He stumbled badly when responding to questions about whether or not he would appoint Muslims to cabinet posts. Overall, a very poor performance. Grade: D-

John King (Moderator): CNN anchor John King was the debate's moderator, and I found his performance to be abysmal throughout. He continually hectored the candidates as he tried to hurry them along in their responses. He frequently uttered grunts, groans, and other vocal cues while the candidates were speaking, as he attempted to shorten their responses. King's vocalisms were clearly audible and very annoying. His efforts to speed up the debate lacked the high level of professionalism I have come to expect from CNN in general, and John King in particular. I think all seven candidates showed admirable patience in how they reacted to King's poor performance. Grade: F