republican round-up

really i'm as surprised as anyone that gingrich is up to bat, though he's the only one who could possibly impress you in a debate. i would have thought santorum. ok he's a neo-con on foreign policy, a very bush-era conservative; deficit reduction might not be his thang. he's a catholic, i believe, but his religion seems very sincere (i wonder about anyone else in the group on that, with the possible exception of bachmann), and a lot of evangelical protestants would be comfortable with his positions on abortion, gay marriage, etc., though they'll sound crazy extreme to others among us. but there's no screeching drawback, no obvious defect of intelligence or informativedness, no rockin scandals. he looks ok in a suit and you could vaguely envision him in the role; i'm not sure i can squarely picture president gingrich, president cain, president perry, or president bachmann. compared to romney or gingrich, he's magnificently consistent. huntsman is an odd case; it isn't just his moderateness, such as it is, that's the problem. on the debate stage or on the stump he looks oddly lightweight; he doesn't come off with the gravitas his resume would lead you to expect, and i've never heard him get beyond his catchphrases, which could be stronger. pawlenty must be kicking himself, thinking he ought to have hovered, ghost-like (broke) for a few months. he might be the nominee by acclamation by now.