Wednesday, January 30, 2008

HORSERACE

A Disastrous Debate

One can wonder if this debate was doomed to be a long, unsatisfying slog before the candidates sat down.

One candidate is running for his ten percent; one candidate is running for vice president. Huckabee repeatedly echoed John Edwards, Alan Keyes, Duncan Hunter, Dennis Kucinich and other trailing candidates in whining that he didn’t get enough questions. (You know what those guys all have in common, Governor? They’re all out of the race now.)

I was too generous earlier; a guy getting three percent who can bring back every question to “printing money out of thin air” is on stage only to give the other candidates a break.

Also, scheduling a debate less than 24 hours after a decisive primary and on the opposite coast pretty much guaranteed that all of the candidates would be running on fumes.

Throw in a three-headed-moderator format – this never works, and seems to be a way to throw a bone to cosponsor the Los Angeles Times and Politico – and a series of questions that varied from the trolling-for-Bush-criticism to the insipid (TWO variations of, ‘are you better off now than you were eight years ago’?) and we were pretty much doomed to have a night that was not particularly insightful for those seeking to learn something revelatory about these candidates. For those of us who have watched all or almost all of the nineteen preceding debates, this amounted to something akin to Chinese water torture. Recurring phrases dripped down on our foreheads…

“I did it for patriotism, not for profit” DRIP

“No country that went off the gold standard ever remained great” DRIP

“I’ll proudly reach out to both Democrats and Republican” DRIP

“We can recapture that Reagan spirit, that can-do spirit” DRIP

As for any attempt to grade the candidates. There are nights where I’ve really loved McCain’s performance in these debates. This was not one of those nights. His energy level was down, he chuckled at his own jokes when no one else was, he seemed a little nastier than warranted to Romney, he left (mild) criticism of his record unaddressed, and we saw little sign that he’s ready to reach out to skeptical conservatives.

Still, McCain at least had an excuse to play ball control; he’s now the clear frontrunner. Mitt Romney had all the reason in the world to explain to every Republican primary voter across the country that the good of the party required them to support him over McCain. I don’t think he did it. I think he was too genteel, too refined, too lightly pleasant. If McCain is the disaster for the party that his detractors claim, we needed to hear why tonight. I can’t see how somebody can watch this and say, ‘Romney really took it to McCain tonight.’

(UPDATE: Over at Contentions, Daniel Casse pretty much nails it, saying he was waiting for Romney say, “We don’t need a maverick, Senator, we need a steadfast, principled and predictable conservative leader.”  It wasn't that Romney had a particularly bad night; it's that he didn't do what he needed to do to overtake McCain.)

Huckabee had a few flashes of his old charm, but every time he whined that he wasn’t getting enough questions, I heard Alan Keyes in his one cameo appearance at the debates this year, thanks to the insane, never-quite-explained-or-justified decision making of the Des Moines Register.

Winner? If you're the leader when you walk in, and no one's talking about how you screwed up, then you probably remain the leader. McCain wins by default, not because of any particular strength in his performance.

01/30 09:45 PMShare