Tonight’s debate will be remembered most for the sharp exchanges between the two Minnesotans – former governor Tim Pawlenty, and current Rep. Michele Bachmann. Both of them effectively damaged each other, but didn’t necessarily advance their own causes.
Bachmann rightly noted some of Pawlenty’s notable deviations from conservatism, particularly his past support for cap and trade. But Pawlenty strongly countered that for all of her talk, Bachmann hasn’t actually accomplished anything tangible, as he did as governor. When she responded by giving a long list of policies that she fought against, it only served to reinforce his point. As he stated, “Leading and failing is not the objective.” All of the policies she fought for became law anyway, he stressed, despite her efforts.
Pawlenty also went on the attack against frontrunner Mitt Romney, attempting to recover from the last debate in which he pulled punches. The first barb was an unnecessary class warfare attack against the acreage of Romney’s lawn. Then, when given yet another chance to explain why Romney’s health care plan was similar to President Obama’s, Pawlenty only said that it was, but didn’t get into specifics. I know that candidates were pressed for time, but it wouldn’t have been hard for Pawlenty to concisely explain the similarities. For instance, he could have said: both Romneycare and Obamacare expand Medicaid, force individuals to buy insurance, and provide government subsidies to individuals to purchase government-designed insurance policies on government-run exchanges.
This wasn’t the only example of Romney escaping. He smoothly deflected other critical questions on health care, immigration and his business career. So, he did what he needed to do to maintain his standing as a frontrunner. But there were also reminders of his vulnerability – particularly his Obama-like defense of the individual mandate. This performance was good enough for now, but he’ll have to step up his game once Texas Gov. Rick Perry formally enters the race.
As for the rest of the field, Newt Gingrich stood out the most for beating very low expectations going in. He responded forcefully to critical questions, lambasting the “Mickey Mouse games” of the media and the “dumb idea” of the Congressional ‘super committee’ on deficit reduction. When you’re down, attacking the media and Washington is a tried and true strategy. And he pulled it off tonight, even though it’s questionable whether it would be enough to revive his candidacy.
Rep. Ron Paul, R-Tex., returned mostly to old form. In the debates up until this point, it seemed like he was making an earnest attempt to come off reasonable to those beyond his rabid fan base. And the rise of the tea parties, and their focus on economic issues, seemed to play into that strategy. But tonight was a set back, at least if he wants to win over converts. His rants against U.S. military intervention, downplaying the Iranian threat by describing it as a country with “some militants,” and paranoid suggestion that U.S. assassinations of terrorists overseas was a threat to individual liberty to Americans at home, will turn off those who don’t already agree with him. In other words, most of the Republican primary electorate.
Former Sen. Rick Santorum was openly frustrated about not getting more time to speak, and when he did, he came out more forcefully than anybody against Paul’s non-interventionist views, and was particularly strong in laying out the Iranian threat. He also tried to carve out a niche by making arguments that defending moral values such as marriage shouldn’t be compromised in the name of protecting states rights. That’s long been a debate within the conservative movement, and he took a stand against creeping libertarianism within the party. This may not be a case for why he should be president, but it did at least make the case that by being in the race, he was representing a strain of conservative thought that wouldn’t otherwise be represented.
Herman Cain, former CEO of Godfather’s Pizza, seemed loose and likeable. “America’s got to learn to take a joke,” he said in deflecting one question. But he still hasn’t demonstrated a depth of understanding of the issues, beyond saying that he knows how to run things because he was a business executive.
Former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman was the invisible man of the night. His answers to the economic and foreign policy questions were competent enough, but he didn’t say anything to make himself stand out or differentiate himself from the other candidates with executive experience.
Ultimately, the debate reinforced the reasons why many Republicans were eager to see Perry enter the race. There’s a clear opening for a candidate who merges conservative credentials and executive experience, while bringing some color and charisma to the stage.
