I don’t think the debate will change much in the polls, and those without the money are not going to gain some by tonight’s performance. Obama surely gains when the debaters end up shouting at each other and forget about the present mess. Cain took a lot of hits that scored. Here’s a quick take.
Romney: I think he won the weird crossfires with Perry: a) illegal aliens working on his property were hired by contractors, not him personally (most recognize the difference); b) Perry’s ad hominem came off too calculated and studied rather than an ad hoc jousting point. He scored points for being above the fray, and parried all the blows pretty well. Along with Gingrich and Santorum, he seems to have the best command of the facts, and is doing a good job presenting a certain presidential calm. He is often aware that the debate is being watched by independents as well as the base. When he survives these sharp attacks, he gets better — much better than in 2008. The flash of anger at Perry was a sort of Reagan “I’m paying for this” moment.
Gingrich: A person from Mars would conclude that once again Gingrich is the most impressive in debates, especially his efforts to steer the attacks back to Obama’s policies. His above-the-fray lectures come off very well. He should reflect why it is, then, that when he does so well in debates and so often is the best informed, he gets little traction in polls — and then address that paradox.
Bachmann: She is well-informed and comes up with some strange, but welcome, takes on issues that few have thought of — like her quips on foreclosures, illegal immigration, Israel, and 9-9-9. For someone who is supposed to be wacky, Bachmann came across tonight as sensible and often imaginative. Along with Cain, she is the coolest under fire, and the lower she sinks in the polls, the more relaxed and better she is in debate — as if the less pressure, the more natural she appears.
Cain: At some point reiterating “9-9-9” or referring to his website is simply not enough. He is fearless and candid, and that counts for a lot, but without at least some detail he comes off more as a salesman. One would think he at least would make a 20-second pitch that he is trying to encourage more production and investment and discourage consumption, or articulate exactly why the half that doesn’t pay income taxes should pay quite a lot through his federal sales taxes and 9 percent income tax — or to what extent a national sales tax would, in EU style, create (or not) an even bigger underground, off-the-books economy. On too many occasions, he doesn’t answer the particular question asked or obfuscates about his past statements. But again there seems no interest in detail at all. Too many weird things about electric fences and trading captives for terrorists = too little political experience and not enough prep. His chief strength: He remains absolutely unflappable! But we don’t elect presidents on that admirable trait.
Perry: He is not the somnolent Perry of past debates, but his animation is mostly ad hominem and comes off mean-spirited. He seems to have realized that midway, and gets better when he talks about energy. Tonight: two steps forward for passion, two and a half steps back for a bothersome abrasiveness. Passion is not just invective.
Paul: He gets a lot of applause for reducing problems to sheer simplicity. But the more he talks, the more it is clear that he is a neo-isolationist. At this point, I don’t see how getting rid of the Federal Reserve is viable when fiscal discipline in the past was not antithetical to it. Fifteen percent cut to the Defense Department? All those cabinets cut in a year? Abruptly withdraw the troops from South Korea? I guess it is to be “starve the beast”: First, cut the military, and then they can’t go abroad. (No aid to Israel makes it stronger?) He can sound good on the economy, and some cuts in foreign aid, but all in all, he is simply not a serious presidential candidate.
Santorum: His is a more informed, more analytical version of Perry’s personal-attack mode; somehow he pulls it off a little better because he offers detail. He rarely says anything that doesn’t make sense. But he seems visibly exasperated, almost to the point of sputtering, that his rivals don’t reply to his revelations about their purported hypocrisies — but why would they? He needs to adopt a little more of Herman Cain’s sunny disposition and cheer up, since otherwise he seems perennially angry that the debate, like life, is not fair and his talents go unrecognized.
"He is often aware that the debate is being watched by independents as well as the base. "
Which actually might not be a plus when you need to win the republican nomination before those independents really matter.
It plays into the perception that romney is more calculating than conservative.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNewt gets little traction? he's seems to be moving up in polls to me. A month ago he was considered a joke, a total joke. In this crowd, he now seems viable. Baout that traction, it seems your perennial NRO winner, Romney is stuck on stop. He goes nowhere, not down, but not up either. With the drum beat from the establishment and NRO that would seem strange, no? Most site contributors seem to have their hands over their ears while humming Romney Romney Romney, as though that incantation will elevate him to "most electable semi-conservative". I certainly doubt his whether he can be elected, but I have no doubts that he isn't a conservative.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYes, Newt is gaining traction slowly, but he can do things to destroy that traction. He's his own worst enemy in this race. Great debater, some great ideas, some horrible ones. Suffers from the disease of always needing to be the the smartest one in the room and have everyone know it, which causes him to advance some dumb ideas.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhile you're right that Newt has flaws (who doesn't?), the question is whether he's better than the other flawed candidates. Romney sure has some dumb ideas, when he actually gets around to defining some of them, and yet he's still promoted as great. At least with Newt, Bachman, Cain and Santorum, there's a conservative philosophy of government behind even the bad ideas.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Paul: He gets a lot of applause for reducing problems to sheer simplicity. But the more he talks, the more it is clear that he is a neo-isolationist. At this point, I don’t see how getting rid of the Federal Reserve is viable when fiscal discipline in the past was not antithetical to it. Fifteen percent cut to the Defense Department? All those cabinets cut in a year? Abruptly withdraw the troops from South Korea? I guess it is to be “starve the beast”: First, cut the military, and then they can’t go abroad. (No aid to Israel makes it stronger?) He can sound good on the economy, and some cuts in foreign aid, but all in all, he is simply not a serious presidential candidate."
Victor Davis Hanson needs to invest in a dictionary because he doesn't know what isolationism means.
A fifteen percent cut in defense would bring it down to what?? 2005-06 levels?? I don't think we'd be any less safe.
Israel is a first world country. They don't need any welfare from the United States.
Ron Paul doesn't want to get rid of the FED overnight. But the facts are the Federal Reserve is Monetary Socialism. Central Planning. The Free Market will provide a better currency than the government.
Victor, you're no conservative.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDear William R.: fortunately, you don't get the job of deciding who is a conservative and who isn't. Sorry, but writing snarky comments on behalf of a half-crazed Ron Paul doesn't entitle you to give VDH the boot. Victor Davis Hanson has spent years of his life helping to formulate and clarify conservative thought. He inspires conservative thinkers throughout the country. What have you done for the conservative movement, brother?
And regarding defense spending, the '05-'06 defense budgets--with war spending removed--were, as a percentage of GDP, lower than the defense budgets of the pre-Pearl Harbor era. Vital systems for the future were/are either being eliminated or starved. We are well on the way to hollowing out, again, our military. Even Leon Panetta, Obama's defense chief if you have forgotten,when asked if further defense cuts would "shoot us in the foot," replied: "No; shoot us in the head."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou made a few good points, then you said this: "Victor, you're no conservative," and screwed up all the credibility you might have gained up to that point by appearing as both a purist and an elitist by simultaneously claiming VDH is not conservative enough for you and that you are the ultimate judge on what constitutes being a conservative.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"He is often aware that the debate is being watched by independents as well as the base. "
This is smart on Mitt's part because he knows in order to win back the White House in 2012 we need a big tent strategy for the Republican Party.
"The flash of anger at Perry was a sort of Reagan “I’m paying for this” moment."
So true. As much as I don't like Perry, ever since he entered the race, Mitt has become a much better candidate. I like how Mitt handled Perry's rude interruptions, it was with authority and strength....he'll be great against Obama after all is said and done.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTranslation:
Hey Mitt, you're so fine, you're so fine you blow my mind... Hey Mitt!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMitt has become a stronger candidate since Perry entered the race? Perry dropped the conservative flag and who picked it up? Mitt?
Ah, no.
He doesn't need to change your mind. He needs to change the minds of me and millions of other conservatives. So far, he hasn't done it, and he didn't do it tonight - and you will never say as much, but you know it's true and I know you know it's true.
Romney is like a nice little nimbostratus cloud - can't go up, can't go down, just sits there about a mile in the air and drizzles on everyone.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOh enough already with the purity conservative preaching to the choir test demands.
Mitt Romney is a conservative. So much so Rush Limbaugh, a conservative authority, in 2008 said Mitt wasn't just a conservative but a triple accredited conservative representing all three legs of conservatism, fiscal, social and defense.
Herman Cain, Santorum, deMint, Hannity, Mark Levin, Laura Ingram, Ann Coulter, NRO, Tim Pawlenty, Darrell Issa, Chris Christie, on and on and on are lists of all degrees of conservative thought that have or are supporting Mitt Romney for POTUS.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat's Rush say about Mitt NOW, Sheryl?
What's Mark Levin say about him?
Your candidate's slimy dishonesty infects his supporters.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCome on Teflon93, be "honest", you know you must. Based on your comments that would make (say it with me):
Rush & Mark are Flip Floppers.
And we know what Republicans think of Flip Floppers don't we?
If Obama wins in 2012 against Perry or Cain, I'm blaming you (and Rush & Mark of course).
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Come on Teflon93, be "honest", you know you must. Based on your comments that would make (say it with me):
Rush & Mark are Flip Floppers.
And we know what Republicans think of Flip Floppers don't we?"
LOL!! Niice!
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"The flash of anger at Perry was a sort of Reagan “I’m paying for this” moment."
Unbelievable-according to the GOP intelligencia, Mitt can just do no wrong. Even when he's flustered, red-faced and angry, it's spun into a "good" kind of anger, a "Ronald Reagan" moment.
Sorry-we in the Tea Party aren't buying it. We've been waiting for SOMEONE to finally draw some blood on this RINO re-tread who thinks he's entitled to be our nominee cause it's "his turn."
Mitt may be slick-making Clinton look like a straight-shooter, but we're not looking someone who's past record as a governor is not much different from Obama. This is why Mitt is stagnant at 25% in the polls. No matter how much lipstick you establishment types put on him, we can see right through it. We will not accept him because he's simply NOT a conservative, pure and simple.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat is interesting to me is to see development of the candidates. What is worrisome is to see some of the candidates stuck in ruts. Ron Paul is one. Rick Perry is another.
Herman Cain is getting there -- unfortunately for him, he is better than this plan; but he, as candidate, is rapidly being painted into a corner as being nothing but this plan; he had a chance to go beyond it a few weeks ago, and could have claimed it was a proposal, but that he is open to other ideas; it's getting too late for that, and his dynamism is drying up -- fast.
Bachmann is developing some depth, but remains out of her depth.
Gingrich has moderated his tone a bit, but let's face it: the brainiest kid in the class isn't always the most popular. He's working on it, he's working on it. But can anyone yet say "Gingrich -- boy, he's got charisma!!"??
Santorum -- I agree -- comes across as querulous. He needs to study Reagan's sunny optimism, against all odds. Indeed, he is the most principled person one could imagine. But we aren't electing a prosecutor-in-chief. He needs to work on the "vision thing" that Reagan had and Bush-41 vainly tried to emulate. Let us hear positive things about your leadership of America into another American century; how 9/11 isn't the death knell, but will mark the re-birth of our nation as an even brighter beacon of freedom, for our own children, but also for the world as a whole. (Not so that they all move here, but that they all WANT to move here again -- not for welfare, but for opportunity and freedom!!).... Actually, Santorum was my favorite in 2008, but he wouldn't run; and I would love to see him in the Oval Office. Just don't know how his prosecutor-persona can "cut it" with Joe Six-pack who helped Reagan get in..... Work on it, Rick!! Work on it!!
Romney -- to my surprise, I thought he came across really, really well in his dispute with Rick Perry. No, I don't trust him to be conservative.... I'd vote for him against Obama -- oh, yes!! But still not my favorite standard bearer. Now, there's a candidate who is progressing!!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePerry's best outing yet - not good, but he can survive and compete with his fundraising operation. The problem for him was being over-hyped as some sort of conservative hero before he got in the race, and now the early schedule makes it tough to rebuild in time.
Bachmann's best debate since the first NH, but she's under no pressure because she peaked too early and burned out.
Cain doesn't have the organization, and the early schedule hurts him, too. He's having problems with "999" as people remember they own calculators.
Gingrich is brilliant - as a history or government professor. He led the 1990's retaking of Congress, but proved himself incapable of leading in power. A non-starter.
Paul's just insane.
As with most of the debates, Romney wins by default by not taking any real damage.
They all need to focus on Obama and stop attacking each other so much.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLaffer's support for 999 and declaration that the math adds up to revenue neutrality by his calculations is a pretty strong counter to the argument it doesn't.
Cain is drawing more fire now as he has become a front runner. He does need to back up 999 better.
The illegal immigration issue for Romney is just another rock on top of the pile. He is another seriously flawed establishment promoted McCain who I expect would give a similar result.
Perry seems a bit more sincere than Romney. I still have some issues with him, but would prefer him over Romney. Overall though, Cain appears to be the best of the three.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"illegal aliens working on his property were hired by a contractors, not him personally (most recognize the difference)"
Sorry, that dog won't hunt. The Boston Globe reported in Dec. 2006, while Romney was still governor, that he was working illegals. He said he would make sure it didn't happen again. Again, the Globe reported in Dec. 2007, eleven months after Romney starte running as a presidential candidate, that he was stil working illegals using the same lawn service. Romney's reponse? He was giving the company a "second chance."
Sorry but Romney is not just some blue collar guy who happens to frequent a restaurant that hires illegals. He lives on a tony estate, and one would think that being that wealthy, and that well known, he has security. Why didn't he direct his security to not allow anyone on the property who was not in possession of legal documents?
Romney was aware the lawn service, owned by a fellow church member, was using illegal labor. He had a responsibility, as an elected office of Massachussets, to make sure that they were not there again. He also had a responsibility to do that as a candidate for POTUS. To be quite clear about it, Mr. Hansen, Romney had a responsibility to turn the lawn service into ICE for hiring illegals. He didn't do that either. One could ask if it was due to the connection he had to the owner who was a member of Romney's church. Ummmm?
You northeastern/yankee pundits make me sick. First, you attack Perry because he is dull, not on fire. Then you go after him because he fights back.
Just be honest; you want to give us another McCain, and another four years of Obama.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePerry has a state overrun with illegal immigrants, yet the best he can hit Perry with is he hired illegals at his residence? Mark is right, people know the difference...
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse