Quick Debate Recap

And the winner is:

Good night for Romney

Mitt Romney.  Romney was the adult on the stage.  When the moderators tried to pick a fight between Perry and Romney, Romney put a quick end to it.  When the candidates attacked each other, Romney said that any one of them would be better than Obama.  Romney drove home the point that Obama is in over his head.  He drove that point so well that it stuck out above the fray.  Instead of seeing animosity, disagreements or even easy shots from Romney, he gave honor to Reagan’s golden rule and even offered Perry a “mulligan” on mandatory vaccinations.  Romney, having just released his plan, had that to stand on in the debate.  Romney has also been paying attention.  After last debate, Obama complained that none of the candidates mentioned the middle class.  Romney responded by saying that the middle class has been hurt most by Obama, while not referencing the President’s criticism by name.  Romney also corrected the moderators on the myth of TEA party “membership”, and then followed up by spelling out exactly what the TEA party stands for and endorsing them.

Newt Gingrich is a great debater and did not disappoint.  His attacks on Obama and focus on Obama, not on other Republicans, showed why he is a great candidate for the GOP.  Gingrich showed a fire that I think most people have lost sight of as he has faded between major events like this.  Unfortunately, because Newt has struggled to gain national attention outside of the debates, this debate as well will probably not give him a bump.  But his performance was a solid 2nd place performance.

Michele Bachmann did not carve out a huge chunk of attention for herself or particularly stand out, but she didn’t make any mistakes either.  She was even able to field the $2 a gallon gas question by pointing out that it was below that when Obama’s presidency began.  I think Americans are understanding better than Huntsman and others what she means when she says she can produce $2 a gallon gas.  But the key for Bachmann was her expounding on why she would not accept a taxes for spending cuts deal.  I think she just beat Gingrich to the punch.  At the Reagan Library, Michele Bachmann reminded us of Reagan’s deal with Democrats where he was promised $3 in spending cuts for every $1 in taxes increased.  Instead, as she put it, he got $3 in tax hikes for every $1 in spending cuts.  This was a shining moment that explained away what could have been easily used in the general election as an attack on the Republican candidate’s uncompromising stance.  For the short amount of time she was given, she met expectations and in that one instance vastly exceeded them.

Rick Perry described himself as the pinata in the party, and as the front runner he could probably have expected this.  He also got a perceived majority of the time as the moderators and other candidates spent a great deal of time fleshing out his positions and attacking his record.  Some of the shine will certainly be gone after tonight.  At one point he seemed to stumble and go into slow motion on one of his responses.  He was beat up a lot and a lot of issues came into the spot light that perhaps he wishes hadn’t.  Perry didn’t back off of his social security rhetoric, which will win him some supporters and lose others.  In the end, Perry survived the night and still came out strong, but I think his front runner status is going to be in danger going forward.  Enter Sarah Palin?

Herman Cain focused on the word “solutions”.  He sounded like a CEO.  He mentioned some of his plans and ideas, but a great deal of it sounded very much like platitudes.  I think in a few weeks I will write a “Where are they now?” blog post about former candidates in this primary who had so much potential but then faded into the background and eventually out of the race.  Pawlenty, Gary Johnson, Mitch Daniels will all make that list.  Is Cain destined for the “Where are they now?” post?

Jon Huntsman did a pretty good job connecting for most of the debate.  A lot of his answers sounded pretty reasonable and brought him further from the edge of moderate liberalism that he had been occupying.  He was doing a pretty good job.  And then he started talking about global warming.  Perry’s slow motion, botched response with simple homey reference to Galileo still put Huntsman to shame on global warming.  Huntsman’s answer on science will distance him from a vast majority of the right base.  Even the vast majority of evolutionists on the right still wouldn’t destroy the economy over global warming science.  Mark my words, this is the death of Huntsman’s campaign, although I doubt he will figure that out for another month or two.

Santorum had an odd look on his face the whole evening.  It almost seemed like every time the camera pointed at him, he was asking himself “what the heck am I doing here?”  I had the same question.  Santorum is a great guy, but his ideas are stale and his campaign is stalled.  Most of his answers echoed Newt Gingrich and the ones that didn’t were the answers of a candidate from a different time than we live in now.  I think Santorum has done a good job of presenting his issues and making sure they are a topic in this primary.  He should gracefully bow out now.

Ron Paul was in rare form.  Well, not really rare form, just rare for what we’ve seen in this year’s more civil, tame campaign.  We didn’t see any of that civil, tame version of Paul tonight.  The moderators, between asking the right questions and denying him equal time, played Ron Paul like a fiddle.  The result was some gems, like Paul saying we should take air conditioners away from troops in the green zone, that gas would only cost a dime if our coins were still made with silver, and that if we put up a fence to curb illegal immigration eventually that fence would be used to keep Americans from leaving.  His performance was completely unpresidential, and he made Perry look like a moderate.  Paul will still appeal to about 10% of America with this debate performance, and they are a very loud 10%.  But he did a great deal of damage to the liveable campaign he had been building to date.  I think he will even lose many of the moderates and independents his anti-establishmentism had been attracting.

7 Responses

  1. Technically Paul was correct on the dime issue. It was a reference to the inflated lost value of the dollar and the price of precious metals because of it. You can in fact buy a gallon of gas with the amount of silver in a silver dime. Context.

  2. Sure, and I think a lot of us knew what he was saying. But I also think a lot of Americans heard that and were left scratching their heads wondering if he’s proposing to bring back silver dimes, saying he could take away enough inflation that a dime could buy a gallon of gas, or just providing witty commentary in the middle of a debate on ideas and issues. Up to this point, Paul has done a good job staying relevant and on message in these debates. But last night we saw the Ron Paul of 2008 and I think it’s going to turn a lot of people off, except for the same loud base he had in 2008.

  3. I also think most of us know he wasn’t saying he’d remove the air conditioners from our troops until people got fed up and brought them home, but comments like those were head scratchers and certainly didn’t help him.

    • I can’t disagree with that. The man needs a debate coach or something that is for sure. I think he has been fine up until this point at which he made some poor decisions in wording and in attacking Perry. He has always stayed above the fray and on message. It was obvious before it started that it was going to be the Perry/Romney fight and i would have advised everyone else to keep the attacks on either one in the back pocket. Anyone besides those 2 who went at it would and did appear as if they were piling on after the fact. I’m a Paul supporter but he hurt himself last night. I will help Ron Paul with his debate, soundbite skills for a minimal fee if anyone is listening?????

  4. I here that, my friend. I’d serve as Paul’s debate coach too if he’d let me. Heck, I’d do it for free for any of these candidates (plus expenses). But I’d rather work with Gingrich. I’d love to pick his brain for a while. Maybe when one of these guys gets elected I can do something to get them to invite me to the whitehouse for a beer :).

    • I think Gingrich has so much potential. If he could just be a more regimented and focused, I think he could be a great President. He certainly knows how to make a convincing and thoroughly explained case and point. It’s just his inability to capitalize on them in a campaign atmosphere and a lack of proper follow up that causes those points to get lost in all the noise.

      As for Paul’s silver comment, from what I have established through the impressions of casual observers, they understood his point, which was in my opinion a good one. But like Gingrich, he fails to take a good point to the next level. More so than even Gingrich, I think Ron Paul will remain a fringe candidate largely becuase he is seen as more of a philospher than a achiever. If both of them could demonstrate an ability to achieve a practical application of their thinking to government, more people might take them more seriosuly.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: