The September 12th GOP debate was a pretty good one, and a few things are pretty clear from the debate.
First, I want to say that the debate was much better from a moderator perspective; CNN isn't my favorite cup of tea, but it's a far better one than the crapfest that was MSNBC's debate last week. Wolf Blitzer kept the stupid questions to a minimum, and actually seemed to focus more on reaching out to the Republican/Tea Party base. He spent alot of time on getting the candidates to have a dialogue about their different viewpoints as their state's representatives in Congress or as Governor. That's a valid moderator tactic, rather than MSNBC's "My god, why do Texas and Massachusetts suck?" cheap shots. So, kudos, CNN. Good job, overall.
Mitt Romney was good, and basically held serve all night. He wasn't perfect- he'll never get over RomneyCare at this point- but he was good when it mattered. He's probably one of the most experienced candidates in terms of campaigning out there, at least. I can't help but emphasize that I like the 2011 Mitt Romney more than the 2008 Mitt Romney. He's learned a bit from his past mistakes. Hell, he looks less plastic than he used to. And he feels more comfortable, and dare I say it, human. Gravitas helps in these debates. He's got it (and so does Perry).
Rick Perry was much better than his previous debate. He looked more in command of himself, and had a better sense of what was required of him at the debate. I think the general flow of questions helped him, too. And he's very good when he goes off the cuff, like with his "you were doing good until ya got to poker" jab at Romney, who took it in good stride. His best answer was actually in regards to the immigration one: secure the borders, and give those who want to stay in America a real chance to become American citizens. It's not the popular choice on the right, but it is the kind of answer that will win a plurality of voters in a general election.
Newt Gingrich was on fire all night. This is the reason he didn't quit his campaign early: he's probably the most natural person on stage. He was articulate, funny, and had the best information at hand to punch Obama with. His lines about Social Security were better in substance than Perry's, and his points about General Electric not paying taxes (the CEO of GE was invited by Obama's to his Jobs Speech in Congress a few days ago, in his VIP box) was on point. He just angled his way into the VP nomination talk....if he can keep it up.
Michelle Bachmann had an off night. I thought the previous debate she did very good, but in this one, she was too focused on talking points (health care by the states is unconstitutional?), and her comments about immigration were possibly the worst ideas of the night. She wants us to go back to the Quota System from before the 1960's. Newsflash: that kept Jewish immigrants out during the Holocaust.
Herman Cain and Rick Santorum were just there. Santorum looked more on point than the previous debate, but he stumbled and stuttered his way through his points too often. He got a red meat chance against Ron Paul, and did okay with it, but he could have had a home run, but settled for a single. Cain had some great points, especially with his working-class background. But he just doesn't have the experience in politics and the real voter base to matter. I'd love to see him keep trying, though.
And then there's Jon Huntsman. He just feels like he's mouthing talking points like a used car salesman, and really just doesn't feel sincere in what he's saying. The worst was his comments to an Afghan-American girl, who asked how he wanted to help Afghan women of the here and now improve their lives. He basically said that 'oh, they don't vote for me, so I'm totally prepared to bug out of Afghanistan, and those Afghani girls can go fuck themselves." Yep. Really. Oh, he also insinuated that Regan wouldn't have done Afghanistan. First, it's an obvious attempt to out-Reagan the other GOP candidates, and secondly, it's an obvious straw man. Reagan couldn't do much militarily in an offensive capacity because the Soviet Union and the Cold War was still on. Nice try on historical revisionism there, buddy.
And lastly, there's Ron Paul. I'm sick of his cut this and cut that and eliminate this and we're just bad for the world crap. He wants to return America to a Jeffersonian style democracy that just doesn't exist. It died somewhere on the battlefields of Shiloh and Gettysburg. It's not coming back. And his comments about American foreign and military policy are just reprehensible. I can't wait for the moment that they give Newt or Perry the chance to go after Paul on his military viewpoints. He effectively blames America for all the world's ills (Also, historical revisionism: My earlier point about the Cold War stands), and practically openly sides with Al Qaeda's viewpoint on it (and engages in historical revisionism on the founding and operational policy of AQ, too). This, more than anything, is what's going to kill Paul in the future debates. I want the other GOP candidates to get angry at him, and threaten to throw him off the stage. Violently.
In the end, I think Perry, Romney, and Newt were the clear winners tonight. Everyone else I think just took a step back, or shouldn't have been on the stage in the first place. Most of the candidates did a good job on fiscal and taxation policy, and they stated their records as governor/senator/representative very well. I do think the candidates need to work better to articulate their immigration and foreign policy (except Newt on that one) viewpoints, and also, start to praise George W. Bush a bit, too. It's not enough to just mouth Reagan! Reagan! every so often. Start talking about other GOP'ers.
In closing, I will say that CNN can keep doing these debates, as long as they keep bringing good questions and moderation like this. Let last week's MSNBC joke stand as a "what not to do" example. And the thinning of the herd begins...
No comments:
Post a Comment