The mark of Cain

I've been watching the Republican field mutate and rotate with some degree of amusement. I'm definitely impressed with how up-and-down the polls have been for most of the candidates.

The latest up is really interesting to me. Cain is accused by many women of sexually harassing them, but, it seems, the "values" voters don't really seem to care about that. One would think that, if morals are your main voting criterion, then that would be a pretty prohibitive problem. (To say nothing about all the religious types who make a big deal out of Obama's name, but think nothing of Cain's. Did they stop reading Genesis at the flood? (Thanks for pointing that one out to me, Paul).)

I'd like to try to read the tea leaves here, and predict who I think it will be, but it seems pretty much a toss-up. Cain's 9-9-9 plan would absolutely destroy the country (plus, what other position could one try for, where a complete lack of experience is seen as a plus). Bachmann and Perry seem to have, at best, a tenuous connection with reality (not to mention both being Dominionists). Romney has contradicted himself so many times that I have no idea what he would actually do if he got elected (Kerry got a lot of grief for that, but he's a punter compared to Romney). Paul is consistent, but would also destroy the country (although I do like a few of his positions). Huntsman is the only one I could personally support, but is basically a fringe candidate. I was a bit surprised to see, with the latest poll, that Newt is still in the race; with the way his campaign seemed to implode a few months ago, I didn't think we'd hear from him again. And I'm probably forgetting a couple of people, which would imply, I think, my analysis of their chances.

As an independent with significant liberal leanings, the only one who has a chance of beating Obama is Romney, but I'm not sure if he can actually win the primary. Certainly, things aren't looking good for him at the moment.

As a side note, I haven't watched any of the debates (I tend to get mad at all the lies when I watch political debates, so it's rare that I'll watch a debate), but everything I hear about them says that they shouldn't even really be called debates. In fact, it sounds like they're being produced by the same people doing reality TV shows, which is definitely not a good thing. These things should be issue-dominated, and it sounds like they're getting close to coming to blows on stage. Maybe it makes for good theater (although not the sort of thing I'd want to watch), but it sure as heck isn't good for the political conversation.

I suppose it's just part and parcel of the ongoing culture war that is attempting to rip the country apart by making everything a left-right battle and getting everyone contemptuous of the other side.