Thoughts on Last Night’s Debate

Mitt Romney must feel very vindicated. He was originally against participating in the YouTube debate, fearing it would be a circus. Even without a sequel from the snowman, he was right. — Thoughts, candidate by candidate:

Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter need to exit stage right. Their chance at being recognized as serious candidates has passed. Tom Tancredo’s prayer answer, while genuine, added nothing to the debate. His only contribution for two hours was noting that its stuff like the Mars Space Program where the rubber meets the road on spending. Duncan Hunter’s attempt to be amusing on the gun toss video fell flat, and we all know by now that he personally built the San Diego border fence. His only intellectual contribution was to reject ATR’s tax pledge because it lacked an out for national emergencies.

I kind of feel for Ron Paul. McCain especially tried to score some cheap points by picking on him. I also think, as an intellectual matter, that his distinction between isolationism and non-intervention is a valid one. None the less, I think he persistently presents a false front in one way: every debate, he says we should stop spending billions in Iraq and spend the money here at home instead. This debate he said in on the infrastructure question. But I don’t think he’s spend the money here at home instead; I think he simply would raise a lot less in revenue instead. I did appreciate his willingness to abolish whole government departments, Barry Goldwater-style.

Fred Thompson needs a new makeup artist. Substantively, his answers on the Confederate flag and the powers of the vice president were disjointed (shoehorning Supreme Court appointments into the VP answer? Come on). Fred deserves great credit, however, for being willing to tackle entitlements. His thimble/tsunami comment is right on – McCain may score points shaking his sharpie at the camera talking pork, but Fred is tackling the far bigger problem head on.

Speaking of John McCain – It was very clear, from his manners and his answers, that he did NOT want to be there last night. I could hardly blame him. The issues were rarely engaged in a serious way. The righteous indignation on waterboarding worked well (shout out to LI/YLS) (though I don’t think we’d have to withdraw from Geneva – I wonder what Pres. McCain would do to the legal framework of the War on Terror he’d inherit from GWB), and he owned the spending question (wield that sharpie!). His repetition of “Let us win” was powerful. But overall he seemed grumpy, as though he knew his chances of winning NH were slim. But he soldiers on anyway, defending an unpopular war because it’s the right thing to do. Good for him.

Mike Huckabee had a good night. He knocked the death penalty question out of the park. His UCMJ answer on don’t ask, don’t tell was much better than Hunter’s answer, though I would add that sexual misconduct of a heterosexual nature that undermines morale breaks the rules too. He did his best to parry on illegals and tuition, though the fact that it’s a scholarship is less of a distinction than he tries to make it. He needs a new tailor (call Rudy’s – his outfit was immaculate), but overall a solid performance. Apparently voters in Iowa and Florida liked it a lot too.

Clearly CNN wanted Rudy and Romney to clash, and they got their wish. I don’t know that either won in the sanctuary scrimmage. The three exceptions Rudy mentioned seem reasonable enough, particularly emergency health care and crime reporting. It’s very fair to blame the INS for sitting on referrals – that bureaucracy was a mess. I do not know the history enough to say if NYC once held itself out as a sanctuary city.

The sanctuary mansion line was effective, but Romney is right to say that we don’t want citizens enforcing the law vigilante style. He should have stressed the importance of enforcing the law on employers. Romney was also in a tough spot on the Bible question. It should never have been asked, but given that, I think he needed to be honest that the 66 books in the Bible the question was holding is not the same Bible to which he referred (Frankly, Rudy should probably have said the same as well – can’t forget those 7 apocryphal/deuterocanonical books).

I thought Rudy’s answer to the 9-11 question was very good. His answers on crime and the border were basically adequate. His gun control answer was inadequate (a professor of mine pointed out that PARKER may hold an individual right to keep and bear arms, but the bigger question of incorporation of that right against the states may be left for a future lawsuit).

Romney and Rudy both did fine, as did Huckabee. Though there may not have been a clear winner, there was a clear loser: CNN. The stage backdrop was busy and distracting. The debate took a full ten minutes just to get going – an annoying waste. Some of the questions they picked were bad – the religion-related ones in particular. Some of the questions they didn’t ask were also bad – it amazes me there was no mention of health care. Anderson Cooper’s follow-up, insisting the candidate answer the question as phrased rather than the issue presented, was very annoying (i.e. WWJD). Anderson lost control at several points, and his feeble attempts to enforce time limits were laughable. Allowing crowd reaction was a bad idea.

Finally, everyone is talking about how the CNN producers failed to screen Brig. Gen. Kerr, who is currently a Vets for Clinton co-chair and formerly a Vets for Kerry co-chair. It is an embarrassing oops.

But it shifts the focus from an equally significant, but more intentional, failing: they gave Gen. Kerr a 90-second soap box to present his case for gays in the military. For a time, it was like he was a ninth candidate, answering his own question. When his mike blipped, rather than using it as an excuse to cut him off and get back to the actual candidates, they gave him a second one so he could continue his speech.

Anyway. I always enjoy debates. I wish the field had narrowed some more at this stage, that the time limits would expand, that the questions would be straight rather than gotcha-ya. I wish they were like Newt’s proposed ninety-minute Lincoln-Douglas debates. On the whole though, I rather like debates: they tell us something valuable about candidates’ priorities, policies, and personalities.

• Tom Barrett's Savings Plan - June 8th, 2010
• C.J. Abrahamson on J. Stevens - April 11th, 2010
• Why always Bill Bablitch? - March 24th, 2010
• Suhr on Nixon on Health Care - February 23rd, 2010
• Did the USCCB Foresee Dead People? - February 8th, 2010