Iowa Debate Means Iowa Race Remains Free-For-All
Debates ideally help move voters to make up their minds but the verdict on the Iowa GOP debate is: the race there remains a free-for-all with Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee continuing to come “out of nowhere” — and seemingly having The Big Mo.
Centrist columnist Walter Shapiro, writing in Salon notes:
Little more than three weeks before the caucuses even a nothing-burger of a debate becomes eventful. Nothing occurred to dethrone the up-from-nowhere Iowa front-runner Mike Huckabee, who is suddenly appearing on more magazine covers (Newsweek, this coming Sunday’s New York Times Magazine) than Nicole Kidman. As veteran Republican consultant Charlie Black, now working for John McCain, put it after the debate, “The biggest thing that happened is that nobody laid a glove on Huckabee.” Even the former Baptist preacher and Arkansas governor seemed surprised by the mild-in-the-streets debate, saying on CNN, “I was kind of anticipating there would be blood on the floor — most of it mine. And fortunately, I came out without a Band-Aid.”
Why was the debate so tame?
Part of it is that instead of having a moderator who steered debate into controversial areas that are on the tip of GOP voters’ tongues, the moderator this time, Shapiro notes, removed two issues that are perhaps a teeny-weenie bit important to many Republican voters (and other Americans):
The self-made candidate from Hope, Ark., did not need a cut man in his corner partly because debate moderator Carolyn Washburn, the editor of the Register, decreed from the outset that there would no questions on immigration (the subject of a new attack ad by Mitt Romney) nor Iraq (a topic that might have underscored Huckabee’s kiddy-pool grasp of foreign policy).
And then there was the other new twist in the debate: the return of a candidate widely-perceived to have as much a chance of making an even-partially-decent showing in the vote as Rush Limbaugh announcing that he will become the new President of MoveOn.org.
Yes, he’s baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaack:
Any possibility of sustained questioning was also undermined by the camera-hogging presence onstage of Alan Keyes, a Republican perennial candidate whose latest accomplishment was losing the 2004 Illinois Senate race to Barack Obama by a nearly 3-to-1 margin.
So an “organic” debate, rising from issues bubbling up from the party’s base due to flames fanned by talk show hosts, pundits and (yes) bloggers, was constrained by the moderator’s ground rules and Keyes’ love of the camera and his own voice.
As Shapiro notes, Huckabee’s biggest danger was from self-inflicted wounds, either new comments that could get him in trouble or older ones made in a different context that take on a sharper edge today.
Meanwhile, the debate was notable for the presence of a might-have-been: actor and former Senator Fred Thompson seemed to finally be getting his political stride…yet another sign that Thompson’s earlier Hamlet imitation in getting into the race didn’t help.
If he had jumped in earlier when there was a clamor, he could have capitalized on the groundswell and also gotten the earlier experience in the earlier debates to move himself out in front. In retrospect, by the time he entered it was too late. Shapiro notes:
Thompson’s breakthrough came when Washburn attempted a moderator’s time-saving gimmick by asking for a show of hands of the candidates who believe that global climate change is real and man-made. Like a political Howard Beale who is mad as hell at cheap debate tricks, Thompson said firmly, “You want a show of hands. I’m not giving it to you.” What seemed to provoke Thompson was not global warming, but the frustration of being constantly required to reduce complex questions to yes-no answers and 30-second sound bites.
The Romney campaign has been arguing for the last two weeks that Huckabee’s rise to the top of the Iowa polls has been partly due to Thompson so woefully underperforming as a candidate. Under this Romney-centric calculus, if Thompson were to make a late surge, it would probably come at the expense of Huckabee. Similarly, Rudy Giuliani — who is battling Romney for supremacy in New Hampshire — cannot help being overjoyed that Huckabee may body slam his nemesis in Iowa. John McCain, who had a flat debate performance Wednesday, could still win the nomination John Kerry-style as the last man standing.
So right now, Huckabee is the one to watch but there are others waiting in the wings. If future debates are similarly constrained in subject matter by moderators who filter out the hot button issues, it could work to his advantage.
And then there is the presence of Alan Keyes…
opinions powered by SendLove.to
2 Responses to “Iowa Debate Means Iowa Race Remains Free-For-All”
WHAT THE HELL WAS THAT?
GOP HOPEFULS LOWER THEMSELVES IN “DEBATE”
Iowa Public TV Should Loose Federal Funding
Johnston, IA (Dec.13, 2007 TBC) “A rose by any other name is still a rose”. Iowa Public Television clearly demonstrated the same does not hold true for a “debate”. While a debate is not a rose it doesn’t have to be a turd. What was billed as a GOP Candidates Debate, conducted and aired by IPTV yesterday afternoon was as far removed from what is conventionally considered to be a debate as the pitiful moderator is from Jim Lehrer. It is no wonder that this waste of time was broadcast live at 2:00 PM local time. Had this crap aired during prime time there would have been TV’s tossed out of windows into icy roads across the state.
Granted, virtually all events conducted in the political process today designated as “debates” are nothing like debates in the literal sense. The formats vary as do the rules, hosts and degree to which the opportunity for actual debate is allowed. This sham yesterday was the oddest incarnation of a debate televised thus far in what has been an overabundance of half-baked, YouTube driven, assemblies of candidates on various stages this year.
Being that this event was the final opportunity for a debate prior to the Iowa Caucuses on January 3, 2008, this would have been a great venue to have the leading candidates define, detail and defend their positions on substantive issues. This was truly a missed opportunity. IPTV blew their chance to show the nation that they are a serious journalistic, reporting enterprise not just some federally funded mouthpiece for crop and commodity reports, children’s programming and The Red Green Show. The average voter is all too aware that there is a plethora of vitally important domestic and international issues our next president will face because our current one has spent the last seven years with his empty head up his rectum.
The IPTV “debate” was, by far, the oddest format with the most bizarre ground rules yet seen. The moderator looked more like the female warden in some B-grade movie was as competent and effective a moderator as would have been Paris Hilton. Aside from her grime demeanor and hostile enforcement of strict time allotments per candidates answer, she was downright frightening to look at. She obviously attended the Katherine Harris School of make-up application; based on the color of her cheeks, she was either suffering from frostbite of a 107 degree fever.
While the cornerstone principals of democracy must be maintained throughout the body politic, particularly in the presidential nominating process, this late in the game, perhaps some discretion should have been exercised when invitations to participate were sent out. Tom Tancredo, Duncan Hunter and Ron Paul have most likely ridden their respective ego-fueled horses as far as they will go. And then there was Alan Keyes. If having filed candidacy papers, having an office and one staffer in Iowa is sufficient criteria for the folks at IPTV to give him a podium, it is amazing that there were only seven participants. Alan Keyes presence was a waste of time; his irrelevance makes his participation even more absurd. His thoughts and style are far better suited for one of the half-witted shout fests like Hardball or any of the trash aired on FOX News.
One rule that was not in effect and usually is not was that the candidates should be required to answer questions with specifics. Duncan Hunter can easily spew out broad statements like “I will strengthen our military. I will return good paying jobs to America. I will secure our borders” and other such horse manure. Noble ambitions all but, the follow up question to every platitude uttered should automatically be “How”? All the candidates are guilty of regurgitating long lists of all that they would accomplish if elected. Why are they not compelled to tell the American public exactly how they intend to accomplish their goals? When the Moderator with the Mommy Dearest make-up asked the participants to provide a New Year’s resolution suggestion for one of their fellow candidates, not one of them did so. This is a minor point to be sure because the question, like most of them, was idiotic. By pre-arranged agreement, no questioning related to Iraq or immigration was permitted. What kind of tripe is that? Arguably, these are two of the more prominent issues on voters’ minds.
The democratic candidates will have their turn on IPTV today. If any of them have any sense or self respect, they would call IPTV and inform them that they have better ways to waste an afternoon in Iowa. Lord knows, Carolyn Washburn, the inept moderator clearly needs some time off, among other things such as remedial courses in Journalism 101, Public Speaking and telling time.
In reality, the debate was a yawner but Huckabee did well and improved his chances in Iowa. It is all for nothing, because he won’t carry other states in the same way he carries Iowa; here in Iowa there are many Religious Right members who are boosting his ratings, many social conservatives — real conservatives here are more conservative than the USA overall. It’s not that way everywhere else, in other words. He might do okay but the smart money remains on Giuliani (yuck) or Romney (yuck).