The Republican debate dispelled at least two clichés about American politics, that it is nastier than ever and that it is not substantive. For two hours, the Republican candidates had a civil and mostly informed debate about serious issues. Anthony Weiner did not come up once. The only light-hearted elements of the debate were brought in by moderator John King’s “this or that” questions preceding and following the commercial breaks — “Ginger or MaryAnn?” joked the San Francisco Chronicle’s Joe Garofoli.
My wife, who has relatively little patience for this stuff, looked at me in the middle of the debate and said that she was “somewhat impressed by most of these people.” Mitt Romney later expressed a similar sentiment when he said that “Any of the people on this stage would be a better president than President Obama.” That line encapsulated the tone of the entire evening, which was far more focused on attacking Obama than one other.
But King’s questions about statements candidates had made in the past served as a reminder to candidates that in the age of Google, anything they say about someone who might be on a ticket with them could come back to haunt them later. For the most part, the candidates seemed aware of this, and they acted accordingly. Tim Pawlenty has been getting some grief about this in the Twitter-verse and in the blogosphere, as he passed on a chance to attack Romney directly on the health-care issue.
It was not just Pawlenty who avoided harsh attacks, though. All of the candidates passed on a chance to hit Romney on abortion, as they appeared to agree that any question of Romney’s level of support for pro-life causes was a dead issue, which was likely welcome news in the Romney camp. Santorum, for his part, when given a chance to comment on Pawlenty’s five-percent-growth plan, agreed with Pawlenty that we need to be optimistic.
Gingrich was the one exception to the tone of the evening, as he seemed to snap at Pawlenty twice. The first time was when Pawlenty took a question on right-to-work states and gave an answer that focused more on public-sector unions. Gingrich scolded him for not answering the question. The second time was when Pawlenty said, referring to a Gingrich response, that we should not be ending the space program. Gingrich jumped in and said, “You mischaracterize me.” Gingrich also appeared rather grim, although it is hard to blame him after the week he has had. He did manage half smiles when the subject of space came up and when asked whether he preferred Dancing with the Stars or American Idol. On a more positive note, Gingrich showed a flash of the old, er, the young Newt when it came to immigration, as he criticized the false choice presented between expelling all illegals and giving amnesty to all.
From a technical standpoint, this may sound minor, but I thought Ron Paul’s shirt and suit were both ill-fitting. As I have observed before, fairly or unfairly, the visual cues are important in a debate, and this is a relatively easy thing to fix. In addition, Herman Cain has got to come up with a better response to the question of whether he would allow Muslims in his administration. I also thought that Michele Bachmann took a risk in passing on her opportunity to talk about the Dodd-Frank law to announce that she was filing papers to run for president. The risk appeared to pay off, though, as her announcement gave her the first “Breaking News” alert of the night and generated its share of headlines in the post-debate coverage. The name of the game for most of the lesser-known candidates is to break out of the pack, and Bachmann garnered some wanted attention with her unconventional maneuver.
Overall, though, the debate did not really change the shape of the race, and its biggest impact may be that it provided contrary evidence to the notion that the Republican field is somehow less than serious. On the other hand, the evening did not exactly leave the participants battle-tested. When one of these candidates ends up facing off against President Obama, they can rest assured that he won’t be fighting by this evening’s Marquess of Queensberry rules.
RE: "“Any of the people on this stage would be a better president than President Obama.”"
Newsflash: Romney endorses Islamophobia!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNewsflash..
Romney endorses islamophobia? that's just a stupid statement but, personally, I hope they all do given where we are in the world.
Obama (the posing president) not only bowed to the Saudi King but told Muslim Turks that we (the US) is no linger a Christian nation.
Any questions? This is not a Muslin nation and yes we require your allegiance to our flag and constitution - is that a problem?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRomney clearly came out ahead.....but he made one big mistake.
You NEVER tell the people the score of a hockey game (or any other game for that matter) that they aren't watching. Surly many people in that room were DVRing the game!
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuseginrich was actually snapping at the ridiculous moderator when he sharply drew the distinction between right to work states and public employee unions. pawlenty did indeed wander off the reservation with his answer, but newt corrected the moderator's spin on pawlenty's answer.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"as they appeared to agree that any question of Romney’s level of support for pro-life causes was a dead issue"
Is that a joke???
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNo.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMitt Romney is pro-life.
I am staunchly pro-life and I think Mitt Romney is a great candidate.
To me it is a dead issue.
If a significant portion of the electorate does not trust Romney's sincerity on his conservatism -- whatever the issue -- then his previously-held liberal positions are not "dead issues".
Conservative voters have one central hang-up about Mitt -- they don't trust he's a conservative, and they therefore don't trust his instincts. So his recent pro choice past is alive and well.
And expect to hear about it now that the first major debate -- held in NH, where Mitt's wildly popular -- is over. Last night, the candidates seemed just as bent on not looking negative as they did on what they had to say (except Newt).
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIn a general election debate against Obama does anyone think that the moderator is going to let the GOP candidate rip into Obama ? Really ??? can you say that with a straight face ?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis was hardly a "debate". More an opportunity to spout generalized one-line sound bites. The only participant to actually elaborate on any issue was Gingrich, and he has already stepped in it with his flip-flopping on Medicare. When asked why previous tax cuts didn't produce jobs, nobody had an answer. Gingrich attributed the robust economy of the '90's to Reagan when Clinton, in fact, was President.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI agree it was hardly a debate.
Gingrich didn't "flip flop". He just had a more complex postion than fits into a sound bite.
The economy of the 90s was indeed robust due to Reagan. Gingrich knows because he was Speaker of the House, defending the Reagan policies against any changes by the Clinton administration.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou can't get anything past Newt - He is sharp and would destroy Obama in a debate. I was relieved that the candidates chose not to attack each other but rather to attack Obama. They were civil, to the point, and I would vote for any of them!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOf course Ron Paul's suit and shirt were ill-fitted. It's part of the whole "I'm a crank, but a serious one" vibe he projects.
Imagine if Ralph Nader ever learned to properly knot a necktie. See, just wouldn't be the same.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe biggest applause line of the night is when Ron Paul said "We should think about protecting our borders rather than the borders between Iraq and Afghanistan.”
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIraq and Afghanistan do share a border, but only in the universe where America has 57 states.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe audience knew what he meant. Instead of fighting endless war in the Middle East we should be protecting our own borders.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think Ron Paul did fantastic. All of his policies are great and its amazing that this article makes no mention what-so-ever of how Ron paul always did great answering each question. He got the loudest applause each time. And on every poll he is voted, by the people, as the best speaker in terms of what he stands for. Obviously the mainstream doesnt want to acknowledge his success for a reason. Ron Paul is a threat to those currently in power or those hoping to be in power.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse