The Liberty Papers

The 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.