During the first Republican debate, you could say “They’re off” — because several were off of their game.
But in the second Republican primary debate for the 2008 GOP Presidential nomination you could say “They’re off!” — meaning off and running, scoring points against each other and tossing out snappy soundbite zingers (most likely prepared in advance).
And, in the end, in a debate marked by Fox News moderators quizzing candidates on whether they were REAL conservatives, plus questions to probe whether they had their positions prepared on gun control, abortion and tax cuts, it was clear that the GOP battle for the Presidential nomination is now out of its pro-forma orientation stage. Let the battle — and the negative ads, op research and defining of political opponents — begin.
And the result? Here are some thoughts on the debate from this independent voter (who has voted for candidates from both parties over the years):
The problematical nature of John McCain’s and Rudy Giuliani’s candidacies within today’s GOP was underlined. Both of them did far better than in the first debates. But McCain probably hurt himself among some Republican primary voters — and helped himself with some independents and perhaps some non-progressive Democrats — by sticking to his guns and coming out firmly against torture. Giuilani, in turn, likely faces problems in the primaries due to his pro-abortion stance — a stance that will help him with some independents and Democrats. Both candidates need to win in PRIMARIES first and they have to suddenly see the light on some issues like former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney or their candidacies could be hard sells. On the other hand, candidates with purer conservative credentials could split the straight-up-and-down conservative vote.
The paradox of Rudy Giuliani was clear. Giuliani at times came across as almost scholarly. Serious. But adamantly a hard liner on issues of national security, terrorism and torture. CLICK HERE to watch a video of what the Washington Post calls Giuliani’s high note — his demand that Texas Rep. Ron Paul retract what some perceived and claimed was an insinuation that the U.S. provoked the 911 attacks. If Rudy gets the nomination, it’ll be because it seems to be a genuine reaction — and these debates hold few of those. Guiliani stumbled on questions about abortion and when asked how he qualifies as a conservative given some of his views. But he came across as a serious, no-nonsense leader.
John McCain recovers but his historical moment could be over. McCain was much better in this debate, but there’s an aura over him that his moment may have passed and that he may still be tough for many Republican voters to swallow. His stance on torture, including torture renamed so it isn’t called torture but is still torture, was strong: “There’s more to war than the battlefield,” he noted and noted that most politicians and officials who have military background agree with his position. That may not matter to primary voters, who may feel McCain is too wobbly in a terrorism-filled era.
Mitt Romney has money, organization and confidence but also a problem. Romney is the most telegenic candidate, the smoothest, and the most convincing….until the fact appears that he has “seen the light” on so many issues and now agrees with what most of the GOP political base advocates. He got a question asking whether any of his position changes due to thinking through issues were changes that put him AT ODDS with what the GOP base wants. His answer essentially seemed unsatisfying and designed to run out the clock. This will be his Achilles Heel, not just in the primaries, but if he is the GOP nominee. You can see someone just redoing the John Kerry commercials. His response in the debate to questions about his position shifts were as totally convincing as Giuliani trying to explain how he fits the definition of a conservative.
Impressions of a few other candidates. The most-quotable sound bite came from Mike Huckabee: “We’ve had a Congress that’s spent money like John Edwards at a beauty shop,” a reference to Edwards’ mega-costly haircut that sparked a lot of stories and derisive blog posts. Running for future Secretary of Defense? Rep. Duncan Hunter (here in San Diego and on my old newspaper he was considered a resource on defense issues)….Tommy Thompson: A product that was rolled out too late and poorly presented. He wasn’t elected a zillion times for nothing — but has a great future as an ex-Governor…Sam Brownback: Will likely be on the national scene competing in future primaries. Could become a bigger conservative player in the future.
The Ron Paul Factor: In every primary there is one rhetorical devil’s advocate who upsets the other candidates and/or seems out of that party’s mainstream or is intensely blunt (remember John Anderson?). IN 2008, in a party dominated by the influence of George Bush on conservatism and other conservatives who want to inch away from that domination, the libertarian Paul’s views, passion and bluntness made him the voice that caused conservative jaws to drop but perhaps some others who don’t agree with the conservative conventional wisdom, or the assumptions underlying questions and answers in the debate, to cheer. Paul will get lots of media ink and attention, even if he only gets 2 votes.
The difference a network makes. The assumptions, questions and the way this debate was conducted was in sharp contrast to MSNBC. Conservatives will say this was the way it should be done and as fair; progressives and others may say the questions were from the perspective of conservatism and support for the administration. No matter how it’s perceived, the Fox debate seemed set up to ask questions that Republicans voting in the primaries would be asking and to grill the candidates (briefly) if they tried to evade them (which some did).
Fred Thompson’s handicap. Each time there’s a debate like this, it could make it harder for Thompson because antsy GOPers may start choosing sides and not want to wait for the summer for Thompson — or Newt — to jump into the fray.
OTHER STORIES AND RESOURCES:
Glenn Reynolds has a roundup and thinks Giuliani won.
Hotline On Call feels McCain won, Giuliani did very well and looked Presidential, and Romney stumbled. Also has comments on some others.
Live blogging by Vodka Pundit
Andrew Sullivan was impressed by Paul’s “cojones” on the war and was impressed by McCain on torture. In a post that needs to be read in full, Sullivan writes: “It’s also clear that compassionate conservatism is dead. Every single candidate favors reduced taxes and big spending cuts. None, however, is prepared to say that Medicare and Social Security must be on the chopping block. The grand experiment in big-government Republicanism is therefore rhetorically over.”
See our earlier post on the debate HERE.
[...] UPDATE: We posted another post after this one. See our extensive analysis and roundup HERE. [...]
Debate Hypnosis
Sure it was boring, which is why I’m posting this as bedtime reading. Whomever decided to have debates in May before an election year did not ask me. Nevertheless, these are the Republican men who would lead our country. At some point we need …
[...] GOP Contenders Second Primary Debate Will Likely Shake Up Field [...]
Wow. The commentators at Fox News just can’t seem to stop trashing Ron Paul after his exchange with Rudy Giuliani. Following the debate, Ron Paul went head-to-head with Sean Hannity and didn’t back down:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEZO7MPxJIs
Hmm…The weblink in my last post didn’t seem to work. Hopefully this one does:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEZO7MPxJIs
John Nichols over at The Nation has a pretty good post that focuses on the exchange between Rudy Giuliani and Ron Paul during last night’s debate:
I wonder if it would ever work for a candidate to say, “I’m not a conservative, but I am a Republican and here are the things I think are good for America.”
Probably wouldn’t.
pacatrue,
Why would a candidate say that, and why should they? The Republican party, of our two main parties, is the more conservative one. Why should candidates disavow that? It’s one thing to run as a moderate rather than an extremist ideologue. but that would be ridiculous to state that one is not conservative but chooses to put a Republican label on oneself. If someone doesn’t believe that conservative principles work, then that person shouldn’t be a Republican.
I cannot believe that people are spending so much time discussing a bunch of candidates that will never be president. Whoever the Democratic Party nominates could be caught in bed with a 15 y/o hooker and still win the general election.
The only question in 2008 is whether the Democrats will get 60 or more seats in the Senate to ensure total dominance of the government.
I think it is healthy to see a variety of viewpoints in either party. I don’t think the Democrats should just field liberal candidates- historically they have run the gamut from liberal to conservative, and the Republicans would be wise to do the same.
Driving out those with a diversity of viewpoint on the war because they use inconveniently true facts in an argument doesn’t make those facts any less true.Ron Paul is a breath of fresh air in a party that has stagnated by taking too narrow of an approach. If the GOP doesn’t widen its appeal, it will continue to lose moderates and independents who don’t kowtow to the party line. The other 9 candidates were almost in lockstep with current GOP dogma- (except for Rudy’s social stances of course)
Well I give Rudy props for sticking to his guns and not pandering to the ultracons.
His background? Hell we have a draft-dodging recovering alcoholic drug user for President. There are no angels in politics.
So, Kim, I assume you would like to see a Democratic candidate who supports the Iraq surge, and who supports a vigorous challenge to Roe v. Wade? After all, we wouldn’t want all the Democratic candidates to be in lockstep on any of these issues, would we?
CS- Now that was snarky, wasn’t it? Actually, I don’t want lockstep Democrats, and I believe we have diversity of opinion within the party on Iraq and other issues- remember the Blue Dogs? Remember, during the midterms I supported the moderate to conservative Democrats that were running, because we need to have a wide range of ideas and solutions-not a platform that is ideologically based.
I personally support making abortion rare but legal, but would not vote against a candidate-if they felt otherwise, solely on that issue. Listen to Hagel, he is telling the truth about today’s Republican party- it is moribund and authoritarian. How can you expect to attract new voters like that?
Kim,
Yeah, it was snarky but I was just trying to make the point that each party has its issues on which there tend to be litmus tests.
Ok, I’ve already stated that I support my party’s moves to broaden their base on some of these issues- do you support the same for the GOP- or should the candidates be handpicked by James Dobson, Pat Robertson and Grover Norquist?
Wow. Do you really think that is a fair characterization? If so, I presume you won’t object if others characterize Democrat nominees as “handpicked by Michael Moore, George Soros, and Al Sharpton”?
Those aren’t the only two choices, Kim. I don’t have to endorse the views of the leaders of the religious right to feel that it’s appropriate for the party to have some boundaries on how far the ideology can bend. On certain issues, the vast majority of people within a party might take a certain stance because their perspective on the issue is colored by the basic philosophy of the party.
In other words, I do support moderation and a ‘big tent’ view, but not at the expense of diluting what the party actually stands for. If the majority of the party members feel that compromise on certain issues does that, then I have no problem with saying that the candidates and elected officials from that party should be in line with the ‘base’.
So it’s not really that I’m criticizing the Democrats for having a litmus test on certain issues. What I am saying though is that since they are also monolithic on certain issues then they shouldn’t criticize the GOP for being that way on other issues. If there weren’t any ideology involved, then each party would be like some kind of sports team- they have to stand for something, don’t they?
CS-
How about standing for pragmatic solutions to global warming, terrorism, growing inequality,a shrinking middle class, failing schools,increasing energy costs, a failing healthcare system, etc? Isn’t that what most voters really care about?
Jason- MM has almost no influence on the Dem party??? Yet he is brought up in conversation after conversation as if he were a party guru. Norquist actually insists that GOP candidates sign his no-new-taxes pledge before he will endorse them, and evangelicals like Robertson and Dobson routinely give candidates their blessing- or signal that they do not meet their moral code. McCain lost South Carolina to GW after calling Falwell and Robertson ‘agents of intolerance’. This time around, he made amends with Falwell and gave an address at Liberty University. He was also the first to send flowery condolences after Falwell’s death.
You wouldn’t see Hillary Clinton working to get MM’s blessing??? And Soros has said nothing- Sharpton is uncommitted. They don’t set a firm ideological script that the candidates have to follow in the same way.
What I was trying to say, CS, is that I would love to see people in both parties standing up and arguing for what they believe in, and then letting the chips fall where they may. A lot of it depends on how you use the terms “conservative” or “liberal” of course. I think the Republican party should be able to hold someone who believes in several central tenets of the Republican platform, but not all of them, and that he or she will then stand up there and try to convince others that he or she is right. I hope the Democratic Party would be able to also host such people. The idea is to tell people where you agree and why you belong and then try to change their minds where you disagree. Instead, we have most candidates just trying to convince everyone they believe what they are supposed to believe. For the Republican party, I guess it comes down to whether or not Republican = conservative, or not.
pacatrue,
I agree with you to the extent that a person should be able to hold some views that might not be “mainstream” in the party and explain them in the way that you suggest- and I’d say that’s what Rudy is trying to do with his stance on social issues. We’ll have to wait and see what happens, but even if he doesn’t get the nomination he does have a lot of support so it’s not as though that sort of difference is completely untolerated in the GOP.
Kim,
Yes, I’d say that people in general want pragmatic solutions but there is nothing wrong with those solutions having an ideological basis either. I believe that there are conservative solutions to many of those problems, and other solutions that really aren’t ‘right’ or ‘left’. The reason that the ideology still matters to me is because I don’t support the idea that the ends justifies the means (which sometimes happens if you ask for pragmatism over everything else).
[...] Gandelman on John McCain at The Moderate Voice: “His stance on torture, including torture renamed so it isn’t called torture but is still [...]
Live blogging the live bloggers – Republican debate redux
Watching alpha dog Rudy Giuliani snap at Ron Paul, followed by the rest of the Republican presidential wolf-pack tearing his carcass to shreds was bad enough. But then came the “Jack Bauer 24″ hypothetical questions carefully scripted to elicit supp…
[...] Read the rest of this great post here [...]