Greenville, S.C. — Perhaps the most conspicuous thing about the first GOP presidential debate for 2012 are the elephants not in the room: Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, Newt Gingrich, and Sarah Palin, among other potential candidates who will not be stepping behind the podium tonight.
Instead, the stage will be shared by an eclectic mix of personalities: former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty, former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum, former Godfather’s Pizza CEO Herman Cain, former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson, and Rep. Ron Paul.
Of those five, many consider Pawlenty, who graced the cover of National Review in March, to have the most serious shot at the Republican nomination. But residents in the early-primary state of South Carolina have mostly said, “Tim who?”
In a poll of 1,363 people conducted by Winthrop University last month, 66 percent of respondents said they hadn’t heard enough about Pawlenty to form an opinion — the highest figure among the eight candidates polled. (Santorum, the only other participant in tonight’s debate polled, came in a close second with 63 percent.)
For contrast, only 16 percent of respondents hadn’t heard enough about Huckabee or Romney, who finished second and fourth, respectively, in South Carolina’s 2008 primary behind the eventual GOP nominee, John McCain.
This gap in familiarity could help explain why Pawlenty is in Greenville tonight, while other rumored presidential hopefuls are not. Asked about the debate strategy, Alex Conant, a spokesman for Pawlenty, told NRO that the event “is an opportunity to make the case against President Obama in front of a nationwide audience and talk about our records.”
On the other hand, those who still have name recognition left over from the shock-and-awe TV air war three years ago probably can afford to bide their time.
A relatively unpopulated stage could give Pawlenty time to shine tonight and a boost to go with it. the question is whether he can grab it without getting too bruised.
Meanwhile, he has been nudging the rest of the field to — in my words, not his — quit pussyfooting around and get in the race, already.
“I hope all of the serious or even potential candidates are going to get in this debate,” Pawlenty said on Fox News last week. “Because, look, this is a president who’s got his challenges, but he’s going to raise a billion dollars. He’s a very gifted campaigner, and we’ve got to start taking the case to the American people why he should be fired.”
Tim Pawlenty was a fine governor here in Minnesota and deserves very serious consideration by all Republicans. He's fiscally and socially conservative and none of his views are the result of recent revelations like some other candidates'.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo far, Pawlenty has feinted, dodged, and avoided directly answering every question posed to him. Color me unimpressed.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhile I know he is NRO's favorite (for some odd reason), he's clearly the worst of the 5. If he can't outdebate them, is he really a major league candidate?
Cain is the only one that comes off as a serious candidate
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNo one associated with this circus is getting a boost of any kind. This is ridiculous. The moderators have now apparently given up on trying to pretend to take these people seriously and are actually asking them to talk about the real candidates. Whoever decided to have a presidential debate in 18 months before the election needs to be fired.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMaybe Tim Pawlenty is the best candidate if the campaign were done on paper. On television, he is REALLY bad. (I wish he were better --- I really do.)
Herman Cain came off the best by far. Rick Santorum was 2nd, ten lengths ahead of whoever is third. Ron Paul and Gary Johnson are themselves, such as that is.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSorry David Sylvester, but Pawlenty got pegged on his waffling Cap & Tax position. I came into this debate eager to see what Pawlenty is about, and came away very disappointed. Seems to be on par with Mitt Romney when it comes to authenticity--politician just oozes out the guy.
I wasn't impressed by any of them, but I agree with others that Cain was the most impressive of the bunch...but that isn't saying a whole lot.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTim Pawlenty was plainly horrible in the debate tonight. He is the Fred Thompson for the beltway crowd. On paper, he seems to have the right amount of experience and there's nothing horrible in his record. So beltway types are free to project whatever they want onto him.
But he's just plain awful. He says the same talking points over and over (Did you know he's the son of a milk man in a union town?).
He doesn't have a record of impressive leadership and he's not particularly persuasive. Next.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHerman Cain came across extremely well.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Meat packing town", Bob Hawkens.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf anyone is curious, you can read my thoughts about the 1st Republican debate here: External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePawlenty is a drip - Period! Stop pushing this bore NRO.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePawlenty: Clumsy and repetitive. He needs to stop listening to his handlers and just make his case. He's the last guy who should be mentioning "meat packing" in a debate.
Ron Paul: He looked like a nutty old crank. I love the guy, but he has lost his fastball.
Rick Santorum: The odd f acial[1] tics were annoying. I bet he was the kid in class with his finger his nose all the time.
Gary Johnson: He'll provide some entertainment. Like all Libertarians, he can't stop talking about weed.
Herman Cain: How can you not love the guy. He is a great story and an example of what's great about this country. He needs to get into the issues a little more if he wants to be the next Huckabee.
[1]This dirty word filter is horrendous. It should be a daily embarrassment to everyone at NRO. There's no excuse for it. This technology has been worked out long ago.
Pathetic.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTo me, Rick Santourm was the biggest joke on the stage. Taking shots at people who weren't even on there to defend themselves. He is a clown without the makeup.
NEXT!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseEver since I met Mr. Cain at the AFT Right Online in Vegas last summer I've been convinced. He doesn't dodge, he doesn't bob and weave, and he says what's on his mind, not what some handler has pre-digested for him. I think we all know that any Republican will be lightyears ahead of Obama on the issues, even the very "wet" RINO ones (who won't get the nod anyhow in the era of Tea Party.) But the one who'll WIN is the one who is a contrast to the sadly cynical era we're in--everyone, left-right-center-undecided is so SICK of the "political" and the "soundbite" and knowing that 99.9% of what comes out of everyone in D.C.'s mouth has been thought of for him or manufactured to gain some sort of perceived talking-point benefit.
Say what's on your mind. Say it clearly. Explain the facts. Tell the truth. That's Cain, and that's why he's the one who can win non-Republicans as well as the faithful.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think without question that Rick Santorum was the most impressive candidate on stage. Pawlenty did himself no harm, but did himself little good either. Ron Paul is always entertaining, as was Gary Johnson, but their views on foreign policy, like most libertarians post-Goldwater unfortunately, would fit better at a Democrat debate than a Republican one. Herman Cain came across as a decent guy and was okay when in his comfort zone; ie, deficit reduction, taxation and spending, but his foreign policy statements would have needed to be 100-percent more thoughtful before reaching the level of vacuous. Santorum, on the other hand, was obviously the most informed, well-spoken and philosophically consistent candidate tonight. He was not only able to speak to all elements of the Republican coalition, but to weave a tapestry that placed the fiscal, social, cultural, and national security elements within a cohesive and coherent philosophy of governing. All that having been said, I was not surprised to see that the group of undecided imbeciles Frank Luntz assembled for his post-debate focus group liked Cain the best, just as they would have preferred Perot ("get under the hood and fix the engine") in prior incarnations. If the thoughts expressed by that group of ninnies is supposed to represent the actual spectrum of Republican primary voters, then the republic is truly in trouble. I doubt seriously that anyone on that stage tonight is going to emerge as the nominee, but there were exactly two people -- Santorum and Pawlenty -- who merited any serious consideration. This long process is not being undertaken to select an after-dinner speaker or a court jester. We are choosing a potential President. That focus group was the best argument against pure democracy I've ever seen.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHerman Cain is quietly building up momentum. I predict he will start to be a contender. He deserves to be so.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI hate to break it to all you Cain admirers, but the American voter will not elect anyone President who's never previously held elective office.
The last person to have accomplished that was Eisenhower 59 years ago, and if one wants to compare the Supreme Allied Commander of WWII with the head of a pizza franchise, good luck with that.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePawlenty does not come across as all that genuine. He has that Romney "focus-group tested talking points" feel to him.
Obviously I'd support him if he got the nomination, but I don't see how he'd be anybody's first choice.
Herman Cain came across as very forthright and, while a bit less polished than Pawlenty or Santorum, the most sincere. He didn't sugar-coat and talk like a politician, which was refreshing.
Ron Paul is Ron Paul, and while I respect his views, I don't think that GOP voters will get behind his (and Johnson's) libertarianism in large enough numbers to make a difference (again). I welcome the focus on the war on drugs, though.
Santorum's focus on social conservatism will probably end up alienating a whole lot of people later on in the general, and I'm not too enamored.
Ultimately, the Republican to beat Obama is the one who is able to remind Americans that our strength is in free markets. You need to have an unassailable free-market record in that regard, be able to skillfully articulate why lower taxes boost everyone in the economy, and be a passionate defender of market-oriented solutions.
We can't have someone apologizing for the things that made our country great, those same things that will ultimately save us. And our nominee has to be able to hold his own with what is one of the most skilled debaters to occupy the White House.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnd I forgot to add, regarding Ron Paul: the widely held view is that his base is where non-lefty Truthers go, and Truthers = mentally unstable. Not to mention his supporters come off as very unreasonable and combative when discussing issues, reminding me very much of "progressives" in their style and tactics.
Hopefully Johnson will get a bit more sure of himself and put a little more work into his foreign policy positions, abandon pure libertarian ideology and realize that the U.S., like it or not, plays a significant role in world affairs.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRick Santorum has accomplished the nearly impossible: He has shaken my faith in hyper-traditionalism as THE way forward for us.
I have always regarded myself as a strong social conservative, although I harbor a few apostasies in my secret heart. When you get right down to it, I don't have a lot of fervent doctrinal beliefs EXCEPT that I believe in "settled arrangements" and the wisdom of evolved human institutions and practices as opposed to revolutionary fervor to "reform" society.
But when I listen to the glib Santorum, I feel somehow like the radical soul trapped in a small-town life of hellish triviality and conventionalism. Heretofore, I have always seen myself as one of the "enforcers" of proper, decorous, conventional behavior. But I just get the feeling that I do not have a place in Santorum's world, which seems like a pious and coercive "Pleasantville."
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse