A Reaction to Last Night's Debate

I enjoyed last night’s debate immensely. CNN’s Anderson Cooper did a fine job of making sure that every candidate had a chance to speak. Viewers had a chance to see more of the candidates who have been sometimes been ignored in previous debates. I tend to like heated debates better than “debates” where candidates are more concerned with appearing friendly than with addressing political issues. This debate did not disappoint. It was full of heated exchanges over the issues and even a bit of witty repartee.

I was, however, disappointed in the exclusion of Gary Johnson. Having recently discovered that Johnson is a fellow Dakotan (a Minot native), I was particularly looking forward to seeing him in the debate. Alas, it was not to be. I do not agree much with Johnson on social issues, but CNN’s exclusion of the candidate is unfair, both to Johnson and to voters.Debates are worth watching, not only because they give voters an idea of which candidate represents them best, but also because they give viewers exposure to different arguments for and against certain issues.

 In last’s night’s debate, for instance, the candidates were able to give their arguments for and against Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 plan, the creation of a border fence and defense cuts. They also talked about their views regarding the influence of religion on presidential candidates. Being able to hear Johnson’s opinions on these things would have made the debates richer. It is a pity that CNN did not think so.

Still, I was pleased with much of the rest of the debate. I think Mitt Romney came out as the winner, though I have not yet looked at other reactions. He was well-prepared, quick on his feet, and able to answer every accusation thrown at him. Not only that, he was able to turn many of the criticisms launched at him around. When Rick Perry criticized him for hiring illegals, for instance, Romney pointed out that Perry had not only opposed a border fence, but also introduced a magnet for illegal immigration, by providing tuition for illegal immigrants. But Romney was not the only candidate to give an impressive performance.

Rick Santorum was absolutely on fire. He confronted Romney on two of the issues that worry conservatives the most about Romney – his links to Obama’s healthcare reform legislation and his credibility. Here’s Santorum:

You just don't have credibility, Mitt, when it comes to repealing Obamacare. Your plan was the basis for Obamacare. Your consultants helped Obama craft Obamacare. And to say that you're going to repeal it, you just -- you have no track record on that that that we can trust you that you're going to do that. (Video)

Santorum may have turned some voters off with his aggressive approach, but he gave voice to some concerns that are shared by many conservatives. I think he was right to do so. Furthermore, I thought the exchanges between Romney and Santorum were some of the best in the debate.

Romney gave a reasonable and fair answer to Santorum’s argument, saying that his healthcare plan had been crafted for Massachusetts and that it would be wrong to force the rest of the country to adopt such a plan. He stressed the importance of states’ rights regarding healthcare and went on to say that, if he was elected, he would repeal “Obamacare.”

Newt Gingrich also put in a good performance, often backing up the criticism of other candidates in a more measured way. Like Santorum, he objected to Romney’s Massachussets healthcare legislation, but he took a gentler approach. Here’s Gingrich:

Now, there's a fundamental difference between trying to solve the problems of this country from the top down and trying to create environments in which doctors and patients and families solve the problem from the bottom up.

And candidly, Mitt, your plan ultimately, philosophically, it's not Obamacare, and that's not a fair charge. But your plan essentially is one more big government, bureaucratic, high-cost system, which candidly could not have been done by any other state because no other state had a Medicare program as lavish as yours, and no other state got as much money from the federal government under the Bush administration for this experiment. So there's a lot as big government behind Romneycare. Not as much as Obamacare, but a heck of a lot more than your campaign is admitting.

By giving this sort of measured response after Santorum’s passionate criticism, Gingrich came off as moderate and sensible, while still delivering a strong argument against Romney's approach. I think this was his best moment in the debate.

Ron Paul was also well worth listening to, particularly when he addressed the problem of spending. Here is what he said:

But I do want to make a point that spending is a tax. As soon as the governments spend money, eventually it's a tax. Sometimes we put a direct tax on the people. Sometimes we borrow the money. And sometimes we print the money. And then when prices go up, like today, the wholesale price index went up 7 percent rate, and if you look at the free market, prices are going up 9 and 10 percent. So that is the tax. So, spending is the tax. That is the reason I offered the program, to cut $1 trillion out of the first year budget that I offer.

Paul is right. Whenever the government spends money, we pay for it in one way or another. While few will agree with every part of Paul’s plan to cut spending, he may be the only candidate who is courageous enough to cut spending as aggressively as it needs to be cut.

In my view, Romney, Santorum, Gingrich and Paul came out looking very good. Meanwhile, Perry, Cain and Bachmann came out looking poorly. Perry was unable to effectively answer Romney’s criticism of his behavior regarding immigration. He often stumbled over his words, looked a little lost from time to time, and was hard to take seriously. Some of this is only superficial. His mannerisms often made him look worse than his arguments, but he did not appear ready and he was no match for Romney last night.

I like Bachmann’s optimism and her sunny disposition, and she answered some questions well. I thought her arguments against Cain’s 9-9-9 plan, for instance, were reasonable. I share her concern about giving Congress the authority to levy a new tax.  But sometimes she seemed to dodge questions and during one particularly painful moment, she interrupted an exchange between Gingrich and Romney to make a point that was little more than cheerleading. Here is what she said:

When even the Obama administration wants to repeal this bill, I think we're going to win this thing. We're going to repeal it! And I will!

This is a fine point, but it was not one that was so important that it warranted breaking into an exchange between two other candidates to make. I think it made Bachmann look a little silly.

Cain suffered in this debate, not necessarily because of anything he did wrong, but because nearly every other candidate attacked his 9-9-9 plan. Cain’s biggest mistake may be focusing so much on 9-9-9. If 9-9-9 goes down, I suspect that Cain will too. Right now, Cain seems to be struggling to defend the plan. Part of Cain’s problem is that he keeps asking people to accept the analysis of the plan that he is putting out himself. What he really needs is to be able to point to an independent group (or groups) that show that his plan is sound and that it does what he says it does.

Still, there is something to like about every candidate and I am looking forward to seeing more of every one of them (and hopefully Johnson and Huntsman!) in the next debate.

Comments

[sdpride]

Santorum was a disaster. Easily the worst performance. He came off looking whiny, snarky, and totally unpresidential.

Gingrich always does well in debates. Perry was terrible as usual. Cain didn't give any specifics on his plan, and didn't really do a good job defending it. Paul was his usual self. Romney had the crowd on his side, but he come off looking a little arrogant. Bachmann did fine compared to her previous performances.

[Miranda]

Thanks, SDPride.

Many will, no doubt, agree with you on Santorum's performance. That is fair. But I appreciate the fact that he willing to say what others are often either too polite or too scared to scared to say. I am particularly glad that he is willing to voice to the concerns of social conservatives, who are sometimes marginalized.

[Bill Fleming]

I'm always intrigued by Ron Paul. I wonder what it would be like to have a guy like that for POTUS.

[Sal]

Ron Paul has a real plan to eliminate the abusive TSA and other useless agencies. Herman Cain, a proven liar at the debates, is an ex-Fed Chair, he’ll never eliminate the Fed (and his 9%+9%+9% plan = 27% tax rate as bad as Libs). Mitt equates corporations to people, killing his general election chances. Ron Paul is the only candidate that will end all the wars. Both Republicans and Democrats support endless Wars for Israel, it all started nearly a decade ago under a false flag attack.
9/11 and Israel, here: http://www.amazon.com/America-Deceived-II-Possession-interrogation/dp/1450257437

[Bill Fleming]

Sal, there are quite a few Dems and Republicans who don't support war. I'm just sayin'.

[William]

Overall, I doubt if anyone's poll numbers will move much, based on last night's debate.

I've seen all the debates so far and while this was Perry's best performance to date, it would be a leap to call it good. He's the only GOP candidate who makes me absolutely cringe when I think of him debating Obama.

I've got to agree with sdpride about Santorum, in every debate he comes across as whiney and petulant, no matter how good his points may be, he undermines them with his presentation.

Best debate for Huntsman, by far!! =|;0)

I really like Herman Cain, but wonder if he wouldn't have been better off simply proposing the Fair Tax, as he's state that's the ultimate goal and 9-9-9 was simply proposed as a "gateway" to it.

Bachmann presented herself well overall, but said nothing she hasn't already said before and ALL the candidates obviously agree that they want Obama to be a "one term president."

Newt is "the smartest guy in the room" again, but his past haunts the social conservatives too much for him to gain the nomination (but EVERYONE thinks he needs a role in the next administration).

Ron Paul has done more to shape the debates than anyone, including Newt, particularly on domestic and economic issues.

Romney is obviously the "Establishment Choice" and has seriously improved as a candidate over the past 4 years (which he obviously should have) but seems to have a low ceiling of support of the most motivated GOP "grassroots".

FWIW, I've always like Gary Johnson and enjoyed the debate he was in, but his positions on abortion and immigration prevent him from gaining ground in a GOP Primary.

So far, Romney and Cain appear to be the frontrunners and Perry has serious money to continue his campaign. Ron Paul will stay in the race until (or unless) he's voted out of it. The rest of the field is pretty much running on fumes, at this point.

[sdpride]

Paul has good ideas but he is terrible at articulating them.

[Miranda]

Thanks, everyone, for your comments.

Bill: I agree with you. Paul is, if nothing else, always interesting.

Sal: The TSA could certainly use some kind of reform. I don't think Romney's comment about corporations will kill his chances in the general election. Corporations are, after all, made up of people. Many of those people vote - and many are unhappy with the Democrats for backing Occupy. Romney's words may actually win him some of the Wall Street types who used to back Democrats.

William: I largely agree with you, but I do think Cain's numbers may go down, while Romney's may rise. I like Cain too. Personality wise, he may be my favorite candidate. But I am not sold on 9-9-9.

[Stan Gibilisco]

And then there came this little twist...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/10/19/adviser-backs-away-from-cains-sales-tax-plan-as-candidate-endures-barrage/?test=latestnews

Big improvement, I say.

Herman Cain has done the nation a huge favor in one respect: He has brought out the "national sales tax" idea -- a toxic, dangerous, seemingly immortal slime-bug -- into the bright sun, which has already begun to shrivel it up. Most Americans don't want it; 85 percent of the Senate doesn't want it. I hope it dries up and blows away with the prairie winds and never comes back in this generation. A "national sales tax," no matter how benign at first, would evolve into a value-added tax and bloat to the threshold of public revolt, 20-plus percent, like they have in Greece; we see how well it has worked for them.

I really like Cain personally; he reminds me a little bit of Eddie Rickenbacker. However, like Rickenbacker, Cain is probably too controversial a figure to ever become President, and his off-the-cuff remarks don't help him at all.

I'm squeezing my brain as if it were a damp sponge, trying to extract the name of a person who I think could really make a fabulous President. I just can't come up with anybody in any party.

[A Scherer]

Paul would do a great job. He'd have zero chance of getting everything he wants, but even if congress went one-third of the way, it would be awesome. For everyone who says he's too far away from mainstream, keep that in mind. Unfortunately, his TV speaking qualities mean he shoots himself in the foot.

Gary Johnson has enough of Paul's issues and a consistent record to keep Paul's fans in the game, if he could just get on TV. If he had gotten started sooner (2008, probably, like Paul), I think he'd be cleaning up. I'll definitely support him and tell people about him, but it may be too late. I'm hoping that Cain flames out, and the media somehow find Gary Johnson instead.

But I won't hold my breath waiting. I expect to use my primary vote for Paul. And if neither Paul nor Johnson get the nomination, I might even go Democrat... I don't have confidence that any other republicans would shrink the government, and if we're going to get big gov't anyway, we might as well get someone who says they care about the little guy.

[William]

A Scherer,

It sounds as if you're saying: if we're going to be driven over the cliff, it might as well be a Democrat in the drivers seat...

More important, in my opinion, will be the makeup of the House & Senate as a result of the next election. I honestly don't believe Obama will be able to secure another term if, as is likely, the unemployment rate remains close to its current level. If the elections in 2012 follow the pattern of the elections in 2010, there will be a mandate for whoever becomes the President to reverse the course we're on.

If we're to survive as a nation, we must address the critical economic problems we face, as they also serve to exacerbate all of the social and cultural issues that are are boiling over. If the economic issues are addressed in a way a majority of the American People believe in, it will serve to diminish the social and cultural divide, as well.

"A House Divided Will Not Stand", and we are currently more divided than I've seen in my lifetime. I fear for the survival of the United States AS United States...

We desperately need a leader that can unite us through what will be a harrowing time, will the times make our next President that leader? It's really not obvious anyone is ready for that, but the same criticisms we hear about the current crop of GOP candidates were certainly made about Reagan. Despite some shortfalls Reagan lead this nation to a renewed sense of pride and prosperity after economic and social challenges similar to those we face today.

With the right team in place, I think Herman Cain may be the best candidate to rise to that challenge. If nothing else, his belief in America as a land of opportunity (and responsibility) is the most inspirational of all of the current candidates.

[Miranda]

Thanks for the great comments.

Stan: Thanks for the link! Bad news for Cain. Or maybe good news. We'll see what he does with it.

Regarding the candidates: Don't squeeze your brain too hard. Your comments would be missed!

I actually like almost all of the candidates this time around. To be sure, they have their flaws, but I wouldn't be heartbroken if any of them won. Well - apart from Perry, who seems to have trouble putting together coherent sentences against Republican challengers. Obama would probably tear him to shreds.

A Scherer: I agree with you on Paul. He would probably not get much of what he wanted, but he would get more done than most would even try for. He would be an excellent check on Congress and Congress would, as you note, be an excellent check on him. Like you, I will probably vote for Paul in the primary. Because I am a social conservative as well as a fiscal conservative, Johnson does not have the same appeal to me as Paul does. But I do appreciate the former's sense of humor and I have enjoyed listening to him during the debates.

William: At least with the Republican we might get to sit in the front seat! Obama, after all, said we had to sit in the back.

I do love Cain's spirit, but he is as fearless as he is optimistic and I think sometimes that fearlessness is more divisive than unifying. Consider, for instance, the time he said that he would not appoint a Muslim to a position on his cabinet. As I say, I like his attitude and I love his personality, but I think comments like that have hurt his chances.