Iowa Debate Wrapup (NRO)

With Fred Thompson expected to enter the race next month, and the Ames straw poll next week, you’re going to see real pressure to start trimming the field in these debates. I can't imagine that too many people are happy with the current nine-soon-to-be-ten guys on stage format. Right now, I only want to see more of about half these guys.

First, George Stephanopolous was almost as bad as Chris Matthews, and that’s a high bar to clear. Steph was snippy, too obsessed with time and cutting off candidates. Almost all of his questions came from the mindset of a left-of-center guy trying to spotlight the Republicans’ flaws – first question was about abortion (yes, because that hasn’t been discussed), why don’t you agree with Grassley on S-CHIP, etc. I might find Tom Tancredo to be a waste of space, but I’m not running a debate; Steph is, and there’s no excuse for ignoring Tancredo for the first twenty minutes.

Yepsen was worse, almost indignant with a question to Rudy on taxes. Seriously, the Republicans deal with these axe-grinding fossils and Clintonite hacks and the Democrats can’t deal with Fox News? Cowboy up, you spineless weenies, Brit Hume isn’t going to bite you.

By the way – slight loss for Fred Thompson. It would have been good to see him out there, to compare and contrast with the other candidates, and to see what he would say on some of these issues – does he think the cutoff income for S-chip is too high? (It is, at least in some states.) What does he think of the Minnesota bridge collapse, and questions about infrastructure funding? Etc. I realize we’ll see him in a debate sometime in September, probably, but for now, his absence weakens both him and the debate – since they don’t seem “real” until he’s in it.

Of the strongest performers, I’ll give a slight edge to Romney, but my general vibe coming out of this is similar to the other ones – Republicans have a clear first tier, and each time, they demonstrate why they’re in it.

Romney’s line about Obama “going from Jane Fonda to Dr. Strangelove in the span of the week” will be the soundbite of the day. Romney knows how to land a punch, and he’s clearly decided to lay off McCain or any other potential future ally. (I guess when you’re leading, as he is in Iowa, you just need to focus on keeping your supporters.)

Rudy is a strikingly strong candidate in these forums, and anybody who thought that this New York mayor couldn’t play in Iowa, or on a stage surrounded by a bunch of down-the-line social conservatives, has egg on their face. He knows how to hit conservatives erogenous zones – emphasizing Democrats’ refusal to use the words “Islamist terrorists,” hitting Yepsen for his question’s inherent premise that the answer to a infrastructure problem is higher taxes, etc. I think his combativeness and humor will play well. We’ll see if that has any impact on the Ames straw poll attendees.

McCain seemed a little… quieter than usual? Serene, almost? The line about the vice president’s duties was funny. Concurring with Kathryn’s take, McCain has shifted from King Leonidas (“to the gates of hell!) to elder statesman. I liked the earlier version better, but I guess this probably suits McCain well.

Beyond those big three, the other standouts were, again, Huckabee (great little anecdote about who he considered his “boss” in Arkansas) and Hunter (a shame this guy can’t make a peep in any poll).

Brownback had one or two better moments, but the debate started out on a tough note, citing his robo-call and his attack on Romney. Iowa Democrats are violently allergic to negative attacks; I suspect the Republicans aren’t that eager to see their candidates tearing each other down this early. (That’s the mainstream media’s job anyway.) He had to make a splash, and I don’t think he did.

Tancredo: Actually, nuking Mecca aside, this was one of his best performances. If he wasn’t Congressman-I-Will-Burn-Amnesty-Supporters-At-The-Stake, his small-government answers wouldn’t sound all that different from the rest of the field. Having said that, it’s tough to see justifying him in these additional debates.

Ron Paul: Actually, he too was better than usual, other than sticking the word “Neocon” into every answer. And to ensure I get my regularly-scheduled batch of mail declaring me "not a real conservative," let me declare again he’s still not going to win, Ronpaulites.

Tommy Thompson: Pack it up. Go home. Consider a Senate run in Wisconsin or something. If this Thompson stays in future debates, I may plan my bathroom breaks during his answers, since nothing he says stands out… ever.

For the most part, I think this guy did a pretty good job with this column. I disagree on a few points and would have said a few things more strongly, but I'd like to see something similar to what he envisions. I'll make a few specific comments.

While I think Rudy Giuliani performed well in the parts of the debate that I saw, he's a long way from being someone that I like. I can never forget that he said on national TV that private citizens should be allowed to own handguns. He can say that he supports the Second Amendment, but for all I know, he interprets the Second Amendment to mean that private citizens should not be allowed to own handguns. He has taken extremist positions on abortion, and he made NYC a "sanctuary city" for illegal aliens. That whole "sanctuary city" attitude is part of why a police officer let one of the 9-11 terrorists go after stopping him on a traffic violation and discovering that he was an illegal alien. Rudy Giuliani performed well symbolically on 9-11, but he's not the man to defeat our enemies so that another 9-11 does not happen.

I agree that the debates would be better without Sam Brownback. He comes across as the weakest, most "girlie-man," of the Republicans. He adds nothing to the field. He doesn't have executive experience. He's not been a champion of the whole range of conservative causes. He plays to the hard-core religious conservatives and gets a huge amount of their money, but he doesn't have the right stuff to lead this country.

I would be very happy with a Tommy Thompson presidency, but he's also past his time by at least a decade.

I like Tom Tancredo. I like his stand for the English language and for Western Culture. I like his willingness to nuke Mecca and Medina if that's what we must do to break Islamic jihad. That idea might sound scary, but if Al Qaeda ever detonated a nuclear weapon in Los Angeles, plenty of people would be willing to support that decision. I'd rather have a president who had contemplated the idea the conditions under which he'd make that decision than a president who had always dismissed it as unthinkable. Having said all of these things, Mr. Tancredo offers us nothing that we don't get in Duncan Hunter, and Duncan Hunter has the added benefit of military experience. If Mr. Tancredo would quit the race and throw his support to Mr. Hunter, the boost in Mr. Hunter's standing would do more to advance the ideas that Mr. Tancredo supports.

Kicking Ron Paul out of the debates will be tough as long as he's no lower in the polls than many other candidates, and he's not going to leave on his own. If Mr. Brownback, Mr. Thompson, and Mr. Tancredo left, maybe the resultant boost to Mr. Hunter and Mr. Huckabee would be enough to put space between the rest of the field and Dr. Paul. In that case, we could eliminate Dr. Paul.

I agree that John McCain's demeanor in this debate was more statesmanlike than his demeanor in some of the previous debates, but he seems to be another candidate whose time has passed. His betrayal of the Republican base so many times in the past will ensure that he never wins the nomination. He's not just running out of money and losing staff. He's losing support from those voters who had seen him as the best choice. He should spare himself the embarrassment of losing a dozen or so primaries and caucuses and should withdraw now.

Fred Thompson hurt himself by not declaring and participating in this debate. He needs to either be in the race or out of the race. At this point, I'd be happy if he doesn't declare by the next debate. I'd like to see a discussion among a much smaller field of candidates without everyone watching to see what Fred Thompson will do in his first debate performance.

If the field narrowed this way, the next debate could feature Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, and Duncan Hunter.

Rudy Giuliani would represent the left wing of the party. He would either have to declare himself a gun grabber or admit flip flopping on this issue. He would either have to admit to extreme leftist views on abortion or admit a flip flop to a more moderate position. He could continue saying the right things on many issues, but the question is whether anyone believes him.

Mitt Romney would be a centrist who is trying to respect the party's right and advocate some conservative positions. He would be the guy with a huge positive potential because he's been so competent at everything he's done. His negative potential is that he might bring back the assault weapons ban and be susceptible to other leftist ideas on the Second Amendment. He must still answer the flip flop questions on abortion and will never be fully trusted by many on the right.

Mike Huckabee is the best that the religious conservatives have to represent their point of view. He gets mixed reviews on how he governed Arkansas, but reasonable people understand that Arkansas is still Arkansas. He can at least point to real administrative experience. He also puts a much less frightening and creepy face on religious conservatism.

Duncan Hunter will represent masculine conservatism. He will stand for the policies and style of Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt. (Theodore Roosevelt might have even liked Sarbanes-Oxley too.) He will stand for protecting our borders, rebuilding industries that make real objects and not just shuffle paper or computer files, and having the "big stick" of a strong military. His weaknesses are a lack of executive experience and the fact that he's better at being a real man than pretending to be a real man.

That would be a debate to see.

Bill

~”Your guy did well tonight.”~

Well, I don’t have a “guy” just yet, though I will admit to leaning strongly toward Romney. I’d be a Hunter guy if he were able to run a better campaign. I’m rapidly considering Thompson’s flirting as good reason for disillusionment. He’s going to have to come out a rock star, with all the hype he’s let build up about himself. I don’t think he’s going to be able to pull it off. Giuliani may well turn out to be Romney’s biggest competition.

I wouldn’t follow that gut to buy a lottery ticket just yet, though. Long, long way to go.

Still, the straw poll is an indicator of organization, and organization is the driver of a successful nomination. It’ll be an interesting six months.

We’ll see how many more gaffes like “my sons are serving the country by helping my campaign” Romney can survive. So far, he seems to brush them off after a few weeks. You never hear about that silly “varmints” comment anymore, for example. It does strike me that Romney’s gaffes get a lot more focus than anybody else’s, though. Might just be because I’m tuned into his campaign.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.