RSS 2.0 FeedWinners & Losers Of The GOP Debate
by Brad WarbianyThe first major day of the 2008 campaign on the Republican side just finished. It had a couple of surprises, at least from what I could see. So here’s my take on the winners and losers. Of course, this is an incredibly subjective analysis, so take it for what you will:
Winners: Winner being the guy who will make the most upward move.
John McCain - To be fair, I don’t like John McCain. I will not vote for him. But he is, in my opinion, the undoubted winner of this debate. He’s spent many years as a politician, and he knows how to handle himself on camera in the spotlight. He was poised, yet strong. He managed to balance on the head of a pin when it comes to supporting the war but distancing himself from its mismanagement. I think he’ll pick up some points in this one. If he does earn the nomination, of course, it could make for a very interesting general election. Many conservatives don’t like McCain, and many liberals don’t like Hillary. Imagine if two hated candidates faced each other?
Positive: For one candidate, this is holding steady in a major role. For another, this is simply trying to get enough notice to move up a few points.
Mitt Romney - A lot of people are saying he won the debate. I think he did well, but something about him just didn’t fit. He seemed too polished, too “rehearsed”. I don’t know quite what to make of him, he seemed to say the right things but didn’t seem to be completely sincere. I think his history as a flip-flopper may be coloring my impression of him, but while I think he kept a solid position, I didn’t see him really step up to the plate. But he did well enough to keep his status as a major candidate, and will likely pick up some points as the others drop off. (If Fred Thompson comes in, though, he’s toast).
Mike Huckabee - As a second-tier candidate, he needed to make a splash. He didn’t. However, his one joke line about Arnold might get him a little TV time on the late-night talk shows, and he did seem to carry himself fairly well. I think he did well enough to get him a little more notice, which will help, but likely not be enough unless he manages to do better in a few weeks. He did do enough to differentiate himself from the pack, while still being a solid conservative, so I think he’s gained a little bit.
Tom Tancredo - Again, I don’t agree with him on his immigration policies. But he seemed good up there, and I think some of his other points were fairly good. Good on federalism, spending, anti-national-ID, etc. I think he’s done enough as the single-issue anti-immigrant candidate (much like Ron Paul has cleared out the single-issue anti-war position) to at least make people remember him, and his other points may appeal to libertarian-oriented folks. And that’s red meat that will play with red state conservatives much better than Ron Paul’s.
Neutral: For semi-major candidates, this is holding neutral. For 2nd-tier candidates, this is doing enough to get yourself remembered.
Sam Brownback - Again, like McCain, this isn’t a guy who I’d vote for. But he seemed to carry the social conservative mantle well. I don’t think he’ll gain any points, but he didn’t lose any. He’s semi-major, in that a lot of people know who he is. I don’t think he really improved his stock much, but he didn’t slide.
Ron Paul - I’d love to say he did better. However, I think his constant harping on the anti-war point, even when the question had nothing to do with it, will hurt him. I might be wrong on this point, but I think that mainstream pro-war republicans might already be writing him off. He does have one advantage, though, he was saying different things than the other guys up there. He might have done something to differentiate himself. Yet at the same time, it seemed like he was relying on the intelligence of the audience instead of their emotions, which again may hurt him. So I’ve got to grade him “neutral”, while hoping I’m wrong.
Losers: For one major candidate, this may just be a blip in the radar. For the 2nd-tier folks, this is a nail in the coffin.
Rudy Giuliani - I really think he’s having delusions that he’s been possessed by the spirit of Ronald Reagan. Most responses either referenced Reagan or how he “saved” New York. When abortion came around, he hemmed and hawed and made no sense. When the question of how the candidates are different from Bush came around he stepped right in line with Bush. He seems willing to decide issues when he’s conservative enough for the Republicans and push issues to the courts when he’s not (i.e. abortion, Schiavo). Overall, I think he created some questions about himself that will erode his support. He’s got enough juice to turn it around if he can play it right, but this certainly showed some big cracks in his armor. I think this might be the first sign to true conservatives that he’s not one of them.
Tommy Thompson - Thompson said the right things, but his delivery is off. He seems like the type who could handle the job, but can’t handle the media pressure-cooker. Listening to him on the issues, I liked a lot of what I heard… Federalism, taxes, etc. Not a fan of his funding for stem cells, though. But really, he just didn’t seem comfortable in the spotlight.
Duncan Hunter - I barely knew when he was talking. He didn’t seem to wow. He’s all the negatives of Tom Tancredo and none of the positives.
Jim Gilmore - Less obtrusive than doorstop Duncan Hunter. My response to Gilmore: who? Didn’t appear to be anything more than a suit spouting platitudes.
It’s too early to tell what will happen next, as there’s another debate soon enough that nobody is going to drop out of the race yet. But I think the writing is on the wall for a few candidates, and unless they make some changes very quickly, this field will narrow soon.
My response did not differ significantly from yours on most of these guys. However, one major difference is that I though McCain did poorly.
Comment by Kevin S. — May 4, 2007 @ 1:27 amI thought Ron Paul was the clear winner on substance. It was great to hear someone up there reminding Republicans that they used to be the party of smaller government and a non-interventionist foreign policy. He also reminded conservatives that real spending cuts require real policy changes, away from military adventurism.
Comment by Doug — May 4, 2007 @ 1:45 amRon Paul was the only candidate saying anything of substance. He is also the only TRUE conservative running. The rest are socialist cronies who care more about big-business than the well-being of the American people. Ron Paul is a true American patriot. People like Rudy Giuliani are not much better than Hillary, and are more communist than conservative.
Comment by Slappy — May 4, 2007 @ 2:08 amRon Paul was the winner, I agree with you as well. One look only at the substance of what he is saying, and use a little thought to see that he alone will be the one to truly change things for the better in our country. I loved how he was the only one with the guts to confront Wall Street as well as the Military-Industrial complex that controls our administration now.
Rudy Giuliani blantantly flip-flopped and lied on the National ID card issue. Anoher career liar, this facist should be feared by any Republican and American for that matter. This issue alone should alarm any true American that believes in freedom. Immediately one should write off most of these candidates including McCain.
Media was biased towards McCain. It seems he did so well because he had more camera time than the others. Did you notice how he was the only one not rushed to finished? This guy is a polished liar as well. I don’t trust him as far as I can throw him, and he’s a blantant warmonger as well. We’re in trouble if he wins. Game over.
Comment by Mac — May 4, 2007 @ 2:21 amRon Paul should clearly be president , he’s got my vote in the bag !
Comment by Meatwad — May 4, 2007 @ 5:14 amI was keeping my powder dry for Fred Thompson and probably still am, but I have to admit that Ron Paul was very interesting and I want to know more about him before making any moves.
Comment by Jay — May 4, 2007 @ 5:32 amJay
Damn…mine are almost identical.
Comment by Jason — May 4, 2007 @ 6:03 amRon Paul was the only one with a consistent stance on freedom, supporting peace and liberty. I have no interest in the other disingenuous slugs.
Comment by jacob — May 4, 2007 @ 7:34 amI wish more candidates would argue on behalf of reason rather than emotion like Ron Paul.
I also hate how the media totally writes of the minor candidates without giving them much of a chance. I read Yahoo news this morning and it talked for several paragraphs about the three major candidates while barely mentioning the others.
Comment by Matt — May 4, 2007 @ 8:58 amWell, Ron Paul has the highest favorable rating on the MSNBC site (currently at 37k votes) followed closely by Romney. According to before and after views on that site, Paul’s favorable rating has also increased the most out of all 10 candidate.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18421356/
McCain and Giuliani’s favorable ratings on there went down, lol. It isn’t a scientific poll but it appears that some people liked what Paul had to say.
McCain looked like a fortune telling automaton from Bizzaro World and Giuliani’s latter responses and backpedaling on the ID question and his answers on abortion made him look like a deer in the headlights. Maybe Scoop and Dump can get a job filling potholes after his campaign is over.
Nice to know that Iran is in the sites of a majority of the hawks up there… Guess we can forget about discussing Iraq because this new “strategy” hasn’t had time to work yet?
I imagine there is a reason few no that stage wanted to talk about Iran instead of the current Iraq situation and our new “strategy”. I don’t think scoring points by exploiting the correlation between Reagan and Iran that is what is steering the discussion away from Iraq, I think it is irony. Republican candidates on a stage in a library named after a man who famously said, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” supporting a strategy in Iraq that is built around antithesis of Reagan’s Legacy. I wonder if Reagan ever played Whack-a-mole?
Comment by chris — May 4, 2007 @ 9:36 amBrad,
Some (minor) quibbles with your list and some unrelated points:
1) I think Mitt Romney won the debate, not John McCain. Where McCain screwed up is when he dodged the Iran question and his mannerisms were a bit off. Having said though, John McCain is my choice for second place.
2) You missed another point in Huckabee’s favor last night; the beginning of him trying to establish fiscally conservative credentials with support for the Fair Tax.
3) Another point against Ron Paul you missed, he came off as way too angry, especially when talking about the Iraq War. I agree with you, he risks turning off a lot of his natural base of limited government conservatives with his single minded focus on the Iraq War.
4) Duncan Hunter, if you caught it, came out as the protectionist candidate last night. He’s also trying to move to the right of Tancredo and Paul on immigration.
5) Tom Tancredo is in a very good position, after last night, to go after libertarian leaners.
6) Rudy Guiliani is one of the biggest empty suits in the race. But then again, we’ve been saying that for months.
7) Sam Brownback needs to get off his single issue focus on abortion he won’t get past 3% support in the Republican primary.
If I didn’t mention a candidate, they’re simply not worthy of comment after last night.
Comment by Kevin — May 4, 2007 @ 12:26 pmForgot one final thing, Ron Paul did very well on one aspect, when the topic was National ID cards. The other candidates were waffling around and vacillating until Ron Paul strongly denounced them. Then they all changed their tune.
Comment by Kevin — May 4, 2007 @ 12:33 pmKevin,
2) Good point. As someone who used to spend a lot of time advocating the FairTax, the proponents of it are a very single-issue bunch. That could mean a lot for Huckabee.
3) (& your second comment) I thought he did well on the National ID comment. In fact, when he stayed away from the war, I think he did better than when he focused on it. It’s definitely a gamble for him to be the “anti-war” candidate, but who knows, maybe it’ll pay off. I was impressed with the “inflation tax” comment, but I think it went over most viewer’s heads… They don’t have to fill out a 1040 to pay that one…
4) Duncan Hunter didn’t make an impression on me, except for when he talked about how HE built the fence outside San Diego. But again, I think he’s the negatives of Tancredo without the positives.
5) Agreed. There’s a fight on immigration if he gets more support, but he definitely made good impressions on spending and federalism grounds.
Agreed on Giuliani & Brownback.
Comment by Brad Warbiany — May 4, 2007 @ 12:48 pmOne thing that really annoyed me about MSNBC’s coverage was that they didn’t have the names up next to the canidate who was speaking. Being a political junkie, I knew most of the canidates but others I did not. Its very hard to keep them straight when you have 10 of them.
I also wish they would have had Republican/Libertarian journalists and commentators to ask the questions (like Bill Buckley, John Stossel, Larry Kudlow, or Bill Crystal). Chris Mathews doesn’t care who wins the G.O.P. primary, he’s going to support the Democrat. If one of these guys asked the questions, I think the questions would have been more intelligent than the ones asked.
Comment by Stephen Littau — May 4, 2007 @ 1:20 pmStephen - simply to play Devil’s Advocate - if the questioner had been likely to vote in the G.O.P, do you feel that it would have comprimised their ability to ask tough questions of a candidate they favored? Maybe it was wiser to have someone not necessarily affiliated with the Republican perspectives?
Unrelated: I do agree that names of candidates would have been very helpful.
Comment by David T — May 4, 2007 @ 1:53 pmI think the writer, and any voter, is too hard on people that change their position, as with Romney. If I draw a first conclusion on a given topic, and later better information comes available, then I think its wise to change my position or conclusion after careful thought. Flip Flopping on an issue isn’t that big of a deal for me. Yet the media seems willing to crucify a politician if they do so. Sometimes defining oneself is a process and not an end….
Comment by Mikeyyy — May 4, 2007 @ 3:25 pmMikeyyy,
Changing your mind on an issue is not a problem. But changing your mind on several issues at politically-convenient times is an indication that you’re willing to change your mind to get elected, not as a result of careful reflection on new information.
Comment by Brad Warbiany — May 4, 2007 @ 3:32 pmStephen
That’s why I’m looking forward to the debate on May 15 on Fox News. Chris Matthews was a horrible moderator and Brit Hume will be much better. Having said that though, there needs to be a mix of people asking the questions from not just the Republican/Libertarian perspective, but there needs to be socialist Democrats and moderates asking questions as well because this will prepare the eventual winner for the tough questions they’ll receive on the campaign trail.
This is another reason why the Democrats are making a huge mistake not going on Fox News and having them sponsor a debate.
Comment by Kevin — May 4, 2007 @ 3:58 pmChanging your mind on an issue is not a problem. But changing your mind on several issues at politically-convenient times is an indication that you’re willing to change your mind to get elected, not as a result of careful reflection on new information.
Good point, Brad. I haven’t ruled out that Romney is doing that, but I don’t know a politician that isn’t like this…Painted on Smiles, Actions and Words that are all politically motivated.
Comment by Mikeyyy — May 4, 2007 @ 4:13 pmWINNER - Ron Paul
LOSERS - Giuliani is a liberal
McCain did very poorly
Tancredo is out of his league
The other guys are nice guys but out of the bunch Ron has the right ideas.
Comment by NH4RonPaul — May 4, 2007 @ 6:00 pmRon Paul won……..did we watch the same debate……McCain seems to have lost himself somewhere along the line!
Comment by thewind — May 4, 2007 @ 6:24 pmRon Paul might have the right ideas, but as has been stated, he comes off as extremely angry. As I myself have had to learn, smiling and not looking pissed off all the time go a long ways in winning people to your side.
Nick
Comment by Nick M. — May 4, 2007 @ 6:25 pmI will be voting a Republican for President for the first time in my life if this Ron Paul from Texas (of all places) gets the nod.
Comment by Mayberry — May 4, 2007 @ 8:42 pmIf you want to call last night’s dog & poney show a debate, I suppose I’ll chime in with my opinion:
Mitt Romney, the clear winner (A-)
Duncan Hunter, articulated his views well (B+)
Rudy Giuliani, a surprising disappointment (B)
John McCain, trying to reassert himself (C+)
Ron Paul, good arguments but anorexic (C)
Jim Gilmore, same ol’ same ol’ (C)
Mike Huckabee, showed some promise (B-)
Tommy Thompson, looks like town drunk (D)
Sam Brownback, held his own (C)
Tom Tancredo, I expected far better (D-)
At the end of the day, this so-called debate will probably motivate Fred and Newt to get in the game.
Comment by Dave Reader — May 5, 2007 @ 3:17 amI forgot to mention Mr. Hardball…
Chris Matthews, wannabe major belongs in the minors (F)
Comment by Dave Reader — May 5, 2007 @ 3:39 amI don’t get this whole “angry” thing regarding Ron Paul.
If you think this country is being taken in the wrong direction, shouldn’t you be a bit vindictive about it?
Ron Paul is trying to make a case to the American people that we need to re-evaluate the role of government in our lives. None of these other candidates are doing that in any convincing way.
Like Brownback trying to blame political corruption on broken families!?!
If you are the type of conservative who actually wants the government to get smaller, I promise you Ron Paul is the only candidate who MIGHT be able to make it happen.
This country is getting more collectivist by the second, and I’m really hoping we’re finally ready to turn it around.
Ron Paul in 2008!
-Chad
Comment by Paul 08 — May 5, 2007 @ 8:55 amRon Paul is not going away. Blogs, comments and youtube have a huge groundswell of supportfor Ron Paul and he will now have poll numbers and money to be in all debates.
Comment by Derek — May 5, 2007 @ 6:23 pmRon Paul is not going away. Blogs, comments and youtube have a huge groundswell of supportfor Ron Paul and he will now have poll numbers and money to be in all debates.
I like Ron Paul. I do not agree with *everything* but I do like him.
However, it is a long haul, and he has a lot to prove to a lot of people…
Comment by Ted — May 5, 2007 @ 6:44 pmIt became obvious during the debate that only Rom Paul and Tom Tancredo are true conservatives. The rest are moderates with a tilt to the right.
Looks like we will have a liberal in charge next year regardless of which party wins the election.
Comment by wx — May 6, 2007 @ 5:54 amRon Paul is the clear winner of the GOP debate at the Reagan Library, which is down the street from my house. All the people in attendance were talking about him afterwards in my town.
Comment by Ron Paul 2008 — May 7, 2007 @ 5:55 pmPaul 08,
I’ve been thinking about your comment:
I don’t get this whole “angry†thing regarding Ron Paul.
If you think this country is being taken in the wrong direction, shouldn’t you be a bit vindictive about it?
No, you should not be vindictive. People realize the fact that politicians are human, and politicians become corrupt. But that does not stop them from hoping that a leader is above that.
As a general rule, we want perfection. We want a leader who is poised, and confident. One who respects rights, and is rational even when everyone else is irrational. We want a leader who is passionate, but not vindictive.
So, anger can be a real issue for a canidate if not presented in the right light. Ron Paul needs to be seen as passionate, not as angry. Right now, it sometimes looks the opposite.
Comment by Ted — May 7, 2007 @ 6:17 pmTom Tancredo won.
He is the only one who properly addresses the biggest threat to this country - illegal immigration - illegal aliens - open borders.
Comment by Rob — May 15, 2007 @ 10:47 pmNo, this doesnt mean poeple just from Mexico. I mean narcotics, terrorist, money and weapons going south.
If you thinks this is not the number 1 issue facing this country, ask someone from Homeland Security - ICE, FBI, Border Patrol, SSA or local cops who work on the border and on the interior of the US where the real threat is.
The gov’t will not provide the real truth in order to prevent panic.
There are more middle eastern males arriving with valid visa’s, who commit marriage fraud with US citizen women then you can ever imagine. The loopholes are still in place, the deciding officials hands are tied, because we have the most liberal immigration system in the world, more than any other country, but they don’t tell you that.
Rob,
No offense, but that’s a bunch of bull.
1. Narcotics are only a problem becuase they are demonized.
2. More people have died from peanut allergies than terrorist attacks. I do not view IslamoFacists as a horrible threat. All they have done is swat us lightly. It’s the fear, and what the fear has made us do to ourselves, our neighbors, and our country that is the problem.
3. Homeland security… it is a department we do not need.
But, again, these are my opinions. I could be wrong.
Comment by Ted — May 15, 2007 @ 11:24 pm[...] Winners & Losers Of The GOP DebateLiberty Papers - Elk Grove,CA,USAI think he’s done enough as the single-issue anti-immigrant candidate (much like Ron Paul has cleared out the single-issue anti-war position) to at least …See all stories on this topic [...]
Pingback by freedomsadvocate.com » In the News…5/5/2007 — May 20, 2007 @ 9:31 pm