The First Debate: Grading The Republicans
Hmmm…well, I wasn’t very satisfied with what I saw tonight. Many candidates put on a face that I think is frankly unappealing to large parts of the country. I hope we put the desire to elevate abortion and immigration into the main issues of the day behind us before the general election, or we shall surely lose.
By contrast, when the Republicans focused on defense, as they did for much of the early part of the debate, it was clear that they are still the grown-ups in the room (especially when compared to the manner in which the Democrats fell over themselves apologizing for Iraq during their initial foray).
On, then, to the candidates:
Jim Gilmore: B. Gilmore had nothing to lose and everything to gain from more exposure, and he acquitted himself well enough to have probably done a bit of good but not so well as to make any major move in the polls.
Duncan Hunter: B-. Another beneficiary of low expectations. Nothing outstandingly good or outstandingly bad.
Tommy Thompson: C+. Thompson did well overall, but he had the night’s biggest gaffe, when he stood up for the right for employers to fire homosexuals merely because of their sexuality. That’s pretty regressive – after all, we’re not talking about altering a centuries-old tradition like marriage here. Some may applaud his stance here – not me.
Sam Brownback: C. Look, there’s no doubt that much of the Democratic Party has an outright hostility toward religion in general and conservative Christians in particular, but Brownback came across to this viewer as sanctimonious and on the wrong side of the boundary between church and state. (However, maybe Brownback should get a B-, because I did like his answer that he would support a Republican nominee who was pro-choice because he agreed with the Reagan position that the person who agrees with me 80% of the time is my friend – one of the only of the many thousands of references to the man that actually resonated).
Mike Huckabee: B-. Huckabee suffered from perhaps too great of expectations; as a candidate who a lot of people feel is at the top of the second tier, he had the most to gain from a home run tonight, but he hit a double instead. Much too much time on the pro-life and religion stuff, here, too. It’s great to be a person of faith – but you don’t have to beat us over the head with it. Huckabee should have spent more time on his signature issue of health, an issue that has resonance with all voters, regardless of party identification.
Ron Paul: C+. Paul was allowed to essentially play his one note over and over, but it’s an appealing one to a lot of Republicans who have a great deal of sympathy with the libertarian position on many issues – but for a politician not to be able to name a single moment when he responded well to a crisis? Unforgivable…why are you even in public office, then?
Tom Tancredo: B+. Tancredo is not my cup of tea, but he acquitted himself well tonight, and was able to articulate his positions clearly in a difficult forum. I think he gained ground, but he’s so far back it will probably matter very little.
And the big three (at least in the absence of Fred Thompson):
Mitt Romney: C+. Romney is telegenic, but in that creepy professional politician way. I wouldn’t buy a used car from this guy, and I certainly wouldn’t want him as my president. A little Romney goes a long way, and I will flat out predict right now that Mitt Romney WILL NOT be the Republican nominee for president.
John McCain: B+. McCain’s presentation skills were off – he stumbled over words and sentences a lot, and that won’t comfort those who feel he is too old. But he knows he’s going to live and die on Iraq, and he stuck to his guns quite admirably. He was also very clear on Iran and strong on pork spending, and that will help him with conservatives.
Rudy Giuliani: B-. Rudy had the highest expectations and he just didn’t deliver. He mentioned Ronald Reagan too many times, and 9/11 not often enough. He bungled the question regarding whether he had any regrets about his relationship with the black community, by (insultingly, in my view) using the question to instead talk about his strides against crime and welfare, and thereby drawing an equivalence that will certainly do nothing to repair the ill will left in the wake of such incidents as the Amadou Diallo shooting. Good for Rudy for standing up for his abortion views in a crowd where that stance was clearly not popular, though…
The winner, I guess, is McCain by default, but we’re going to have to do much, much better than this at articulating a vision that will get us elected in 2008. Dogmatic references to a pro-life culture and endless evocations of Ronald Reagan are not going to get the job done in the current climate. I think the Republican Party itself came out a pretty big loser on the night…
We obviously watched a different debate. Let me preface by stating that I’m formerly a Rudy supporter and now undecided/anybody but Rudy: Rudy was not good tonight: not terrible-but not good. his response to the shiite/sunni question made dubya look smooth and confident by comparison. McCain looked more stiff and wooden than algore, although I liked his responses regarding fiscal responsibility. I thought Romney did the best of the big three, but not overall (although, you may be right about the creepiness thing). Hunter came across the best to me – Paul clearly the worst; is he always that angry? For the life of me I can’t see how you give tancredo, who turns every question into an immigration issue and looks like a younger version of grandpa Munster, a B+ while giving Romney a C+.
As of right now, none of the candidates has my full support. If the primary were today I’d vote for Romney.
Tonite’s GOP debate was disappointing. The questions were, by and large, ridiculous. “Have you seen Al Gore’s movie” and “Bill Clinton back in the White House?” Gimme a break!! Why weren’t the candidates questioned about U-S energy policy and U-S trade policy? I guess dollar and cents issues aren’t important to Chris Matthews and the dude from politico.com. It’s little wonder Americans (except for the political hacks in both parties) pay so little attention to Presidential campaigns.
JB, all I can say is it’s funny how people watch the same debate and come out with different reactions, but it’s not unusual. I think it has to do with the expectations you bring in; clearly, mine were different than yours…
SD. You’re right, the questions were not only designed to make Republicans look bad; they were incredibly juvenile and meaningless.
I guess what else would you expect from Chris Matthews?
Though you’re right, Romney probably should have been at least a B-, perhaps a B – I was a bit too harsh on him based on personal reactions, I guess…
Oh, and I did like Romney’s answer that he wouldn’t tell anything to Roman Catholic bishops, that was his best moment…
Pretty boring night….usual “non-issue” issues to “discuss” (abortion, Clinton, Shiavo, etc.). Except for Hunter and Tancredo, none are strong on the issues most conservatives and Americans worry about the most – loss of industry in this nation to China and India, 3rd world illegal immigration invasion, bilingualism being shoved down our throats, pandering to muslim’s desire to introduce bits of sharia law and customs into our society. Duh, the mainstream pols just don’t get it. I wonder why?
Didn’t see it. Don’t watch these silly mass exercises that have zero impact on anyone but political junkies, of which I am one but still do not think matter. A cable show on the #3 cable channel so no one other than the junkies watched anyway.
Even the 2 man post-nomination debates do not matter much. President Bush won the debates in 2000 but lost the popular vote, he lost them in 2004 but easily won the election.
I’m with you Bob from Ohio, these debates occur much too early to do anything more than create a little exposure for the candidates. In fact, I think debates in general serve little useful purpose because the dynamics force the candidates to posture and position and because the moderator(s) have become an overly large part of the proceedings.
For the record, I was flipping between a soccer match (Revolution vs DC United) and a baseball game (Red Sox vs Seattle).
Rudy referred to 9/11 “not often enough?”
The Onion referred to Rudy not long ago as running for “President of 9/11.” I give him credit for strong leadership in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, but that alone is a slim reed on which to run for President. I also give George Bush credit for strong leadership in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, and we all know what happened to him. Crisis management is certainly an important part of leadership, but it is only one leadership skill among many.
(In my view, Mike Bloomberg has been a far better mayor than Rudy was, and would be a fantastic President. I would vote for him above anyone else on the planet.)
While I only watched a little of the debate – unlike Steve, a Red Sox game was not among my viewing options – most of what I saw concerned 9/11. One would think that this is the only issue facing us. In my view, it is the second most important issue, after extricating ourselves from Iraq, but followed closely by health care, rebuilding our infrastructure, the environment, reducing the federal debt and the trade imbalance, and a host of other issues. It would have been nice to hear more about the multitude of other problems which the next President will be faced with.
“Romney is telegenic, but in that creepy professional politician way. I wouldn’t buy a used car from this guy, and I certainly wouldn’t want him as my president.”
Amen to that Mark. I couldn’t have put it better myself. If he somehow managed to win the nomination, I would probably have the same reaction that Mickey Kaus had to John Kerry: I’d be afraid that he would get clobbered by the likely Democratic nominee, and I’d be afraid that he’d actually win.
It’s still Rudy for me, but agree he didn’t acquit himself well. Two things that should give heart to us Republicans.
First, any of these guys would be far better than any of the Democrats now running.
Second, the elephant not in the room? Fred Thompson. A Rudy-Thompson ticket would be able to stomp Hillary, and I don’t think that Nothingburger Obama is going to wear well when he actually has to face a real challenge.
I thought Romney was the winner and I thought he was creepy in a used car salesman way, until last night. I thought Duncan Hunter was great and I had high expectations for him and was not disappointed. Guiliani was terrible and I am sorry to say that, he is a one trick horse 9-11, his embryo stem cells answer his answer to changing the Constitution for Arnold, his answer to abortion, “it would be o.k.”? what was that. He really needs to nuance things better or he will be out quick. McCain, well he looked old and that of course is unfortunate, I think his time came and went. I do look forward to hearing more from Gilmore and Huckabee, and that my friends is how this conservative viewed the Chrissy Matthews, leftwing Politico debates:-)
I can agree that the debates mean little to most and probably won’t impact the race much. But I’m a genuinely undecided Republican and am looking forward to more debates to help me decide who is the most electable conservative. I wish Thompson would make a decision so that I can see and hear more from him; he seems to possibly fit that criteria.
Peter, with all due respect, very little of that debate concerned 9/11. It was mostly about Iran on foreign affairs, but more than that, it was mostly about social conservative issues like abortion, stem cell research, and Terry Schiavo, just exactly what this Republican cares least about in a presidential candidate (because these are issues very tangential to the national executive).
Check the transcript if you don’t believe me; I guarantee you can count the references by Rudy to 9/11 on one hand, easily, and it’s his biggest strength…
In fact, the thing Rudy mentioned far, far more often than 9/11 was reducing crime in New York…
[...] Jackasses : « The First Debate: Grading The Republicans [...]
Can anyone enlighten me as to the percentage of crime reduction in New York compared to the correlating reduction of crime nationwide during the same time period? Just wondering if he did better or worse than the national average. Just like abortion…Giuliani likes to take credit for stuff like abortions being reduced by something like 16% or 18% under his administration, but he doesn’t mention the fact that abortions fell by a far greater percentage nationwide during the same time period (sorry I can’t remember exactly, I think around 30% or more). I’m guessing on crime he may have done better than the national average, but I wonder if anyone can say specifically.
Mark: I’m sure you are correct — I was flipping channels — probably a function of the bits of the debate which I saw –
jb:
The murder rate declined 86% on Rudy’s watch. I don’t have the exact figures for other major cities at the tip of my fingers, but I know it was nowhere near that amount nationwide.
Well, I think Dr. Paul did much better and resonated better with more people than you give him credit for. He’s certainly the darkhorse candidate, but one to pay attention to, nonetheless. What others saw as anger, I saw as unwavering principled firmness, something a President most certainly needs. Did you notice how he influenced the debate? When he rejected the notion of a National ID, something that will be coming to your wallet in May ’08, his opponents, especially the ‘front-runners’, scrambled to modify their earlier statements. Need I remind you that he was the only one to mention Habeas Corpus? Because of that, he also has “crossover” appeal from Dems and Indies that gives him an advantage over the others. Don’t count Paul out just yet.