As other GOP presidential candidates’ popularity rises and falls, a steady one-quarter to one-third of Republican voters continue to support Mitt Romney, center. (Richard Brian, Reuters Photo / October 19, 2011)


The former Massachusetts governor may prevail only because a plurality of Republicans don’t seem to like anyone else a whole lot better.

By Mark Z. Barabak, Los Angeles Times
October 19, 2011, 5:32 p.m.

Reporting from Las Vegas— After a concentrated burst of campaigning, the GOP presidential race has been distilled to a simple question: Can Republicans learn to live with Mitt Romney even if they don’t love Mitt Romney?

The former Massachusetts governor is certainly not a lock to face President Obama in November 2012.

He displayed an unflatteringly brittle and peevish side during the Tuesday night debate in Las Vegas, turning snappish when challenged on healthcare and illegal immigration, two old issues that drew fresh blood as his rivals assumed a more aggressive stance.

Yet the rapidly accelerating contest remains about where it was a month and a half ago, when the steeplechase of six debates in six weeks began: with Romney the front-runner by default, leading not because of his overwhelming appeal but because a plurality of Republicans don’t seem to like anyone else a whole lot better.

Romney’s main opponent and chief debate tormentor, Texas Gov. Rick Perry, may have helped his ailing campaign by turning in a performance Tuesday that was good enough to maintain his viability until his TV advertising can kick in. Still, his performance was not great, and failed to erase concerns about his command of issues and his deftness in parrying criticism.

Businessman Herman Cain, who surged to the top of some polls on the strength of his earlier showings, became the latest GOP phenom scorched by a suddenly bright debate spotlight. He was forced back on his heels defending his “9-9-9” tax plan and flailed on a no-brainer question on his willingness to bargain with terrorists. (Cain finally ruled it out.)

In the absence of other defining moments, the debates this year have driven the GOP race to an unusual degree and clarified not just the candidates’ positions — which are actually at little variance — but also their personalties and temperaments, which can be just as important to voters.

The biggest loser in that regard has been Perry, who entered the race in a starburst that sent him soaring to the top of polls, only to fall back after a series of stammering and admittedly weak debate nights.

Other candidates have been uneven (Cain and Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann can stir an audience with one answer and confound them with the next) or largely irrelevant (the perennially grouchy former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, or the marginal former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr., who decided not to show Tuesday night). Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum would fall into a special category, coming off as strong, passionate and well-informed in each of the debates, yet having little to show for it. Texas Rep. Ron Paul, who has a small but devoted following, appears similarly situated.

To read entire story, click here.