The Republican Debate in Michigan: The Wrapup

Tuesday, October 09, 2007

Was it just me, or was this debate oddly subdued, considering the hype? I think I expected to see real fireworks, real back and forth between the candidates, and other than one exchange between Romney and Giuliani, and a quick jab between Romney and Thompson, it didn’t happen.

Winners?

Giuliani: Didn’t seem as pugnacious as I would have expected – must be the confidence of a frontrunner. Went after Hillary early and often, which works for him, but those of us watching all of these debates will note it feels like he’s straining to work her into every answer: “Mr. Mayor, what did you have for breakfast this morning?” “You know, Hillary Clinton had oatmeal, and I’ve always felt that her choice represents the gray, mushy leviathan of big government. I prefer corn flakes with lots of fruit, color, some brown sugar, something that represents the freedom and excitement of this great nation.” Still, if you walk into a debate leading the polls, and nobody walks out talking about your YouTube moment or egregious gaffe, you’re the de facto winner.

I liked his “getcha head up!” to Maria Bartiromo when she asked if London would replace New York as the world’s economic capital.

Thompson: Thompson shouldn’t have won, and he had some meandering and rambling answers. But he seemed to settle in as the debate progressed, and got better on the foreign policy questions. There’s something admirable about a candidate who answers a yes or no question with a simple “no” – no pressure to shoehorn a short speech or slogan into the time allotted. And here’s what blew my mind - did anybody really take a shot at him? Not until Romney’s good, but canned line, and he deflected it by calling Romney an actor. Somehow, he managed to come through this without so much as a metaphorical skinned knee. Did his opponents think he was burying himself? I don’t think voters are repelled by answers that wander on their way to the conclusion. It was not a shining debut, but he didn’t hurt himself.

Everybody else:

Romney: Overall, prepared and seemed sharp, but the line-item veto seemed like a weird front to fight Giuliani. (Didn’t pro-lifers just threaten to walk out if he gets the nomination? I realize that wasn’t easily to address abortion in a heavily-economic debate (although Brownback’s one mention got applause), but I figure that’s a softer underbelly than the line-item veto or the commuter tax. Are there any Republicans out there saying, “Dammit, if Rudy’s the nominee, I’m outta here; give me the original language of the line-item veto or give me death”?)

A total whiff, I think, when asked about the greatest threat to America’s economy is losing our sense of optimism. I think there were a slew of better answers - mass casualty terrorism, the growth of the leviathan regulatory state, confiscatory tax rates, a perception that the federal government’s responsibility is to take care of all of our problems, an education system that isn’t preparing …

McCain: Some good lines (“I have a glass of ethanol every day before breakfast, but I still don’t think we should subsidize it.”), but he didn’t stand out. Maybe he had trouble hearing the questions. This won’t hurt his comeback much, but let’s face it: McCain is running to be a war president, a war candidate, and economics doesn’t seem to stir his blood as much as the life-or-death issue of Iraq.

Huckabee: So much potential, charm, natural smooth political talent… and yet no money. What gives?

Duncan Hunter: Congressman, I respect you. You’re one of the few asterisk-level candidates who deserves better. But you’re not getting anywhere, no matter how solid your debate performances. How do you feel about running for Senate in California someday?

Sam Brownback: You’re a decent man, and indeed, in America, “this place rocks,” It’s cute that your grandmother, a mail-carrier is a “postage-packin’ grandma.” But as time goes on, as your numbers in Iowa tie those of Alan Keyes, we’re left wondering, ‘Why are you still in the race?’

Tom Tancredo: Actually tonight was one of this better debates. But you’ve had six debates to beat the drum on illegal immigration, pal.

UPDATE: I forgot Ron Paul. That's for two reasons. First, with so many candidates on stage, the fourth or fifth guy in that lower tier is easy to forget. Second, the Vast Conspiracy To Keep Down Ron Paul told me to leave him out.

I had wondered if he would make a bigger splash, or seem higher-profile, as he's now rolling in dough. Eh, not so much. It's nice to hear a guy come out and say he doesn't like any subsidies for anybody, but in the end, Ron Paul is playing on a different field, and competing for different voters than everybody else.

As I just noted in conversation with one of the strategists for one of the candidates, actual debates are rare at both parties' debates. Among Republicans, Romney thinks Giuliani should bleed over the line item veto, Hunter's tougher on Communist China, and Paul wants federal government to be trimmed to about four employees. Beyond that, the policy differences are pretty small.

10/09 06:10 PM Share