VIVA LAS VEGAS!!! – Random thoughts about tonight’s GOP Debate
(Rick Perry wins the Debate Raffle, accepts life-size inflatable Mitt Romney Doll prize from Herman Cain.)
Two quick confessions:
First Confession: I have not seen any of the GOP debates up to this point. I’d like to make excuses about time and commitments, but the truth is I kind of have a “meh…” feeling toward the three-ring circus you get with debates that feature so many people trying to be heard and remembered, and also toward the three-ring circus that is this particular field of candidates.
Second Confession: I listened to most of the debate in my office as it was streamed, so whatever appeal CNN’s game show-like set and LucasArts-style graphics might have had was lost on me.
I’ll leave it to others to pound chests on either side of the aisle. I came in not particularly liking the idea of any of these people as President, and they did little to sway me. However, I must say that I found the whole thing enormously and surprisingly entertaining. (This is not necessarily a good thing.)
The blogs are going to be abuzz about this debate for the next day or so. People on all sides will be trying to spin imaginary triumphs and begin crafting potential attack ads from sound bites. But that’s those bloggers. What about the blogger that has no horse in this, sitting in the back of the room quietly wondering more about whether or not to grill burgers for a second night in a row than he’s wondering who can beat Obama? What are that blogger’s thoughts?
Well, that blogger’s thoughts are as follows:
• An interesting format for this debate, in that it gave anyone who had been slighted a 30 second chance to respond. I assume that all camps had been informed of this rule in advance. But maybe not, because everyone kept attacking Mitt – which meant after whatever anyone said Mitt got extra time (and the last word) to respond. The dynamic started with Herman Cain and his 999 tax proposal, and I remember thinking “Ooo, bad timing for Mitt. Now everyone will know not to talk about him so much.” Or so I thought. The other candidates didn’t seem to ever figure this out, and thus made the evening kinda feel like The Mitt Romney Show.
• I am assuming that their campaigns were banging their heads against the wall with this same observation, because when everyone’s closing statements started to morph into a game of “Let’s See How Far Mitt Can Hit THIS Softball,” moderator Anderson Cooper initially did not let Newt Gingrich or Michelle Bachman give a closing statement. When they complained, Anderson explained that CNN had been asked by their own campaign staffs not to let them speak. Yes, that’s right – Gingrich and Bachman’s campaigns asked the nice TV people to not let their candidates say anything else on camera.
How freaking awesome is that? It might be my favorite TV debate moment of all time.
• When I was young and in sales, my manager once told me I had to be more aggressive and bold, and not allow myself to be intimidated by the competition. So of course being a kid I overcompensated; I was just enough of a d**k in the way I talked about my opponents to ensure that no one would ever want to buy anything from me ever. Which brings me to Rick Perry.
I’ve heard that his earlier performances were soft and tepid, and that it was common consensus he needed to come out with fire in his belly tonight. That may be true. But this was not the way. Maybe it would have come across different seeing the words come out of his handsomely rugged jaw line, but with only audio he came off as shrill, bitter and desperate. The way he sounded against Romney, I kept wondering if Mitt was giving him the low bird and winking whenever Anderson was looking somewhere else. He seemed to settle down for a bit after he called Romney an illegal immigrant magnet, but that might just be because he was starting to get booed. (Substantially more, I might note, than the gay GI got in the clips I’ve seen. So good for the GOP there.)
• Ron Paul is actually kind of amazing, in that admirable “they’ll never elect him in a million years” kind of way. I’ve known that he’s not afraid to buck the system with pulling troops out of other countries, stopping aid to Israel and stopping Medicare, of course. But if I’m not mistaken, tonight he reminded everyone that Ronald Reagan traded arms for hostages with terrorists. (Or, as Newt was carful to point out in Reagan’s defense, sponsors of terrorists.) Seriously. Ron Paul dissed Ronald Reagan. In a GOP debate.
Can you even do that in a GOP debate? Is it allowed? I didn’t hear much from him after that, and until he spoke at the end I had assumed that he’d been automatically disqualified from the race, escorted out of the building, and relocated to live in Newfoundland with David Frum.
• Best I can tell, everyone’s prescription for bringing prosperity back to America is repealing healthcare reform. You know, the one that caused the whole financial mess. Even though it hasn’t been implemented yet.
• Oh, I forgot – also, creating jobs. That would be good too. I hadn’t considered it prior, but now that the case has been made I can see how creating more jobs could lower unemployment. Tomorrow when the White House and the nation’s employers realize the answer has just been staring them in the face all this time they’re all going to feel pretty stupid.
• Santorum has never been a favorite, but this whole faith/values thing felt a little like “When I talk about how my religious beliefs are an awesome reason to vote for me it’s a good and healthy values discussion, when you point out that my religious beliefs might not be so mainstream it’s talking about one’s faith and you’re not allowed to go there;” it was a little strained and I found it icky. Which brings me to…
• Romney’s talk about the need to refrain from religious litmus tests was out-of-the-park awesome, and reminded me of when Bill Clinton had a similarly great response on the subject during a debate with Bob Dole. For me, the best and most adult moment of the debate. The GOP is better than I give it credit for these days if they do not make him pay for saying that out loud.
• What happened to Bachman? Even when she says things I think are bat-s**t crazy, she does so with style and charisma. Tonight she just sounded like the kid that didn’t want to be left behind. Is that a radio thing? If I’d seen her while hearing her, would I be thinking differently – or is she finally running out of gas?
• Biggest take away for me: Only one guy remotely electable in a general election, and it’s the one guy the GOP faithful seem to have zero interest in putting up. In other words, everyone leaves the debate the way we came in.
Thoughts from those that actually watched and paid attention to it?
The guy that no GOP’er is particularly enthusiastic about is nevertheless pretty much every Republican’s second choice. To Mitt Romney, then, falls the task of picking off the hardcore conservatives one by one, before they set their egos aside and consolidate around a single candidate. Perry looked good, Cain was the flavor of the month, but the nomination is looking more and more like it’s Romney’s to lose and there is precious little time left for that dynamic to change.
If I were in Camp Romney, I’d start with moving in to Perry’s support, since he is the only one who can compete with Romney from a fundraising perspective. Then, I’d move on to poach Cain supporters, and then Bachmann’s. Gingrich and Santorum will almost surely implode on their own before South Carolina’s primary, and Paul is neither capable of winning the nomination nor of being edged out at all, so the best strategy is to ignore him until the delegate count is locked up.
If I were in Camp Perry, I’d tell the Big Guy start cutting deals with the other candidates as soon as possible to stop Romney from doing exactly that — Herman Cain would make a pretty obvious choice as Secretary of Commerce; Attorney General Michelle Bachmann would keep the base happy and nicely polarize the electorate; Gingrich can be named a “Special Policy Advisor” or some such thing that underlines that he’s Still Intellectual And Still Relevant. VP spot on a Perry ticket needs to be reserved for a moderate Republican so as to not scare voters back to Obama in the general election, and who can carry a swing state back to the GOP column. John Kasich or Bob McDonnell, maybe.Report
I agree with the Romney camp strategy. But the Perry camp scenario? What’s the value in getting a whole group of people that have such high negatives and keep saying wacky things the press just runs with?
Not that I wouldn’t pay to see such a campaign, mind you.Report
He’s got to do something to position himself as “the only conservative still in the race.” That means getting the Bachmann-Cain-Santorum Overdrive to voluntarily bow out, and preferably to endorse him as they go.
If it’s not a Cabinet position, what else might he offer them in exchange for their withdrawal and endorsement?Report
I dunno. I’m still of the mind that the GOP faithful really, really want to like Perry – and the others not so much. I suspect very small tweaks to his current on-cam persona would be worth far more than any alliances.
(Since I banged out the above I have seen the highlights of his interactions with Romney, and was shocked – as bad as it sounded in audio only, it was far worse with the visuals. I seriously can’t tell if he just doesn’t bother to listen to coaching or if he really had so little opposition in TX and he’s just this poor a campaigner.)Report
What consistently amazes me is how bad Perry looks at all times. I have very little respect for George W. Bush as a person or an intellect, but it’s telling how large the gap between him and Perry is in terms of things like stage presence and politician-ness. Perry just looks like a rank amateur every time the camera is on him. It’s amazing that he has the job he has.Report
… George W looked good until he started drinking/drugs again, you mean. After that, it got rather … easy to tell which he was on.Report
Bush had years of good breeding when it came to politics. Yeah, he was a cokehead who lucked into running a baseball franchise, but he still had the good sense to know how to act toward people in public.
On the other hand, Rick Perry is basically a redneck from the middle of Texas who became Governor because Bush won in 2000 and stayed in office the same way anybody else in a one-party state does – by winning once. 🙂Report
I have been told by people who have seen it that where Perry excels is working a room of people on his own. That’s all well and good up to the level of a state-wide election; on the national stage, a candidate just can’t work enough rooms to make a difference.Report
If I were in Camp Romney, I would tell him to chill the blank out, cuz this thing is over: he’s Hillary Clinton and there ain’t no Barack Obama in this race.
In terms of debates, I would tell him that this means CALM THE FISH DOWN AND START ACTING LIKE THE FRONTRUNNER IN DEMEANOR AS MUCH AS ISSUE POSITIONING. IN PARTICULAR, AVOID GOING BALLISTIC ON THE LITTLE PEOPLE IN THE RACE (like, you know, the sitting governor of the second most populous state in the Union) OVER THE SPEAKING TIMES OR DEBATE FORMAT. ACT LIKE YOU REALIZE THAT, TO THE PARTY AND THE COUNTRY, THE POINT OF ALL THIS IS TO GIVE OTHER CANDIDATES A CHANCE TO CHALLENGE IN SOME SMALL WAY WHAT HAS BECOME YOUR ESSENTIALLY UNCONTESTED PATH TO THE NOMINATION – THE NOMINATION OF A PARTY, JUST INCIDENTALLY, TO WHOSE OPPOSITION’S VIEWS MOST OF YOUR VIEWS AS RECENTLY AS FIFTEEN YEARS AGO WERE MORE SIMILAR THAN THEY ARE TO ITS OWN BASE’S CURRENT ONES. CRIKEY.
My advice would be spoken in all caps like that.Report
.
This made me giggle. (I need to go to sleep.)Report
Perry is a sizeable threat to Romney — one, because despite his flaws, he’s got the political ability to consolidate enough votes to challenge Romney for delegates, and two, because he can raise beaucoup bucks.Report
I think you have those backwards.
The money is the only reason why Perry still has a shot. Even though his potential to gerrymander the remaining candidates and pick up their supporters is there, it’s a far second.Report
Perry looked good? Was I watching a different debate?! The immediate after coverage on CNN said that too, and I thought Perry was every bit as stumbling and awkward as the previous debates.Report
aftercoverage is “biased” to whomever the bigheads want to win. In this case, it’s perry, because it’s profitable to see a longer nom fight.Report
Agreed. I thought he looked an absolute mess. Perry, despite his character sheet, fails every single saving throw.Report
Keep in mind that Romney likes to bring out the religious litmus test prohibition when talk turns to his particular religion. He’s more than happy to insist to that our leader needs to have a faith of some kind. Just don’t talk about his.Report
I go back to his Houston speech four years ago where he basically said, “Yes, you need to be a person of faith to be the president, but you can’t ask the particulars of *my* religion.”Report
Cause in /his/ religion if he doesn’t make President, he can always make godlike ruler of his own planet. And you’ll wish you had voted for him /then/ won’t you??Report
Great line.Report
I don’t get to vote on rulers of celestial kingdoms. And if I did, it’d be for somebody a bit more hedonistic than Mitt.Report
If Perry came off as something of a confused stoner in his initial debate performances, in this one he presented as a petulant child throwing a major temper tantrum. Hint to Perry for future debates–he who yells the loudest and cuts off his opponents does not win the debate. I can’t believe I’m saying this but Perry is Bush on steroids–he doubles down on the grating twang, the frat boy cockiness, and teh stupid. Especially teh stupid.
While Mitt Romney strikes me as a slimy shape-shifter, he’s definitely the only plausible candidate the Republicans have at this point (given it doesn’t look like Huntsman is ever going to gain any traction). I could live with a Romney presidency. All the others on stage last night make me want to run off to hide in Canada for the rest of my life. This is the third or fourth debate I’ve watched, and each one makes me progressively more depressed. Are the Republicans kidding with these candidates? I really need to dose myself with a couple of glasses of wine before attempting to watch another one.
While I’d never vote for him, Ron Paul was awesome last night in reminding Republicans that St. Reagan traded arms for hostages. Had he also mentioned that Reagan raised taxes as both governor of California and president, the GOP crowd probably would have rushed him off the stage with pitchforks.Report
Michelle, it sounds like you got the same thing from TV as I got from an audio stream. Out of curiosity, had you seen any of the previous debates? I had heard that they were dull, and finding this one entertaining I’ve been wondering if it was a lot different or if I’m just really weird.Report
I’ve seen several of the debates (though I admit to only being able to stomach the one previous to last night’s for about ten minutes because the number of outright lies told by the candidates left me wanting to smash my TV with a brick). This one was definitely the most contentious. I wouldn’t call it entertaining (the thought of any of these clowns becoming president is simply too painful), but the fireworks level was a lot higher. It’s been clear from the other debates that Romney and Perry DO NOT like each other, but the hate was much more obvious last night. Plus, some of the down-in-the-polls candidates (Santorum in particular) clearly decided to go for broke and up the outrage level.Report
I get this, but I think my take away from that same sentiment is that no one other than Romney is remotely electable in a general election.
Regarding Santorum and Gingrich, I can’t figure out why they’re even in the race at this point. They feel like joke candidates. (Others on that stage might be jokes, but at least they have pretty large tribes pushing them on. What’s pushing Santorum and Gingrich to stick it out? I honestly have no clue.)Report
I think Newt is gaming for what Burt alluded to earlier: “I’m the Elder Statesman, somebody bribe me with Secretary of State.”
Santorum I have never understood.Report
Santorum is a true believer Pat.Report
Oh, I get that. I just don’t understand it 🙂Report
But a believer in what? That he can win the nomination? Or even do damage? Cause that’s crazy belief.Report
Probably and most plausibly to himself I think he believes that his cause is righteous (and I’m surprised at how irritable I feel at having to write that about him).
Less plausibly to himself I think that he believes that by being in the race he can represent and advance his causes (loathsome as I find them).
Less plausibly yet I think he believes that if he tries and is steadfast God may reach down and hand him the nomination (and the Presidency).
But who knows, maybe he just doesn’t wanna hunt for a job after that glorious day the voters of PA threw him out on his sanctimonious ass.Report
This is more charitable and affirming than my theory, which is that he’s surrounded himself with so many Yes Men that he thinks he’s doing great.Report
He cannot possibly be that stupid.Report
I think you may be underestimating him.Report
There ain’t enough “yes men” that can be that stupid.Report
For Santorum and Gingrich, I think it’s twofold. One, running for President is good business. It can lead to having a FOX News TV show or higher sales for your books. Second, at this point, they probably both think they can be the anti-Romney since Perry failed and Cain is currently being kneecap’d. I mean, Newt is still hanging around 10%.Report
Newt is many things, but I credit him with enough general politikin’ savvyness that he should be aware he isn’t the anti-Romney.
Still, that 10% is probably worth a seat in the Cabinet.Report
My argument is, “why shouldn’t Newt have a shot at being the anti-Romney?” I mean, he’s more well qualified than Cain, less insane than Bachmann, and has a firmer grasp of public policy than Perry. And all those people have gotten a shot. 🙂Report
Because he’s generally regarded as less likeable than Mitt is? So he’s basically Mitt Romney with a bigger downside.
That’s just my take on the guy, granted.Report
True, he’s less likable than Mitt. But, is he less likable than Cain, Bachmann, or Perry? Not really.
Yes, in a normal Presidential primary, Newt would be dead in the water. But, this is no normal cycle.Report
Well, there’s “likeable to moderates”, “likeable to liberals”, and “likeable to conservatives”.
I think Perry, Bachmann, and Cain are all likeable to conservatives. You can go hang out and have a beer with them.
Newt stinks of pretension even more than Mitt does.Report
The hardcore base *hates* Newt, and he’s not running to win, he’s just doing the latest variant of the same grift he’s been running since he got booted out of Congress — using a Potemkin campaign to sell books and appearance fees.
I’m starting to think Cain is running the same game.Report
I think the android of a third wife and Newt’s long history of cheatin’ and whorin’ pretty much rules him out for the values voter crowd who are so desperately searching for an anti-Romney. He also oozes far more slime per square centimeter of skin than Mitt.Report
Oh, and I don’t think Newt wants to be Sec. of HHS or anything like that. Too much of an ego. He wants to be POTUS, or a Cheney-like VP. If he can’t get that, he’ll happily go back to hawking his books.Report
That could certainly be, as well.Report
While romney isn’t McCain, I’d have to see his running mate before I’d decide whether or not I could live with him. [am rather finicky.]Report
Yeah. My fear is that in order to appease the rank and file that seem to hate him so, Mitt will have to pick someone pretty high on the bat-s**t crazy meter. I don’t want another Palin looming in the heart-beat-away seat.
(On the other hand, part of the fear with McCain was the worry that maybe the old guy wouldn’t last the whole term and you’d be stuck with Palin. With Mitt you have some level of confidence that the animatronic lab that built him could quickly fix him up if need be.)Report
fear of McCain dying? Sir, you wound me. Try damn-near certain, and possibly not of natural causes (or being forced to take a backseat to Palin in some other way). Palin’s backers are mean mofos, and they tend to have a bit of a vengeful streak.
They’re a good reason to never vote Republican.Report
Romney’s running mate is going to be Rubio.Report
The GOP ticket having both a Mormon and a Latino? Call me dubious.Report
I can’t think of anyone else who balances Romney the way he needs to be balanced. Rubio is a right-wing maniac, beloved by the base, and believed (incorrectly) by the Establishment to be the key to unlocking the Latino vote. Your skepticism is founded on the notion that the GOP base feels about Rubio’s ethnicity the way it feels about Romney’s religion, and that’s just not the case. These people adore Rubio the way they adore Christie, but Rubio doesn’t come with Christie’s actual policy record (which I consider disqualifying on a Romney ticket for what should be obvious reasons).Report
I’ve never bought that the right adore Christie. I think they adore the idea of Christie, in the same way they adored the idea of Perry until they got a chance to see him. Were he to have entered, I suspect they would have started becoming familiar with his positions and turned feral on him.
My bet is that Mitt’s camp goes with a relative unknown, white, male, hard right guy with some deep evangelical bona fides. I think anything else and a lot of the base stay home on election night.Report
I don’t think Romney’s as stupid as McCain. But I could be wrong.Report
Yeah, it’s the idiotic part of the right that hates Christie and Romney alike.
Liberals love their Testers, their Webbs, even the bloke that damn near walked his shoes off in Wyoming.
Republicans are always so busy having a closed tent that it smells like piss.Report
Rubio is the sensible choice for sure. But he’s awfully young…Report
Cantor would be the more dubious choice. A Mormon and a Jew? No way in hell.Report
Though it would make for the most awesome GOP bumper sticker ever:
Romney/Cantor: They’re Not Muslim!Report
Hurmm. Good call. Hopefully Rubio doesn’t turn into Dan Quayle — a risk with a politician new to the bright lights.Report
Rubio has repeatedly said he doesn’t want to be on the 2012 ticket. I suppose he could be BSing, but the power players seem to be taking his opt-out seriously.Report
A mere 2 years in the Senate? Only an idiot would vote for someone so clearly underqualified.Report
Well played, sir!Report
Huh? Was this supposed to be in response to someone else?Report
I took it as a free-standing one liner.Report
I’ll give some credit to Romney for his defense of religious freedom and the absence of any religious litmus test for high public office. But was I alone in finding it rather self-serving as well, particularly in Nevada which has a substantial Mormon population? I’d have been much more impressed with that speech if he’d given it, say, in South Carolina, but I’ll be that he wouldn’t have.Report
Andrew Sullivan said that about 25 percent of the audience at last night’s debate was Mormon (not sure how he came up with that figure) but that does explain why the audience seemed more sympathetic to him than the audiences at previous debates.
While I too appreciated Romney’s defense of religious freedom, I’ll give it a lot more credence (and Romney a lot more brownie points) if he makes the same argument in a deep South state.Report
Yeah, it was pretty fortuitous timing for Mitt that the Mormon thing became the elephant in the room needing addressing right before this debate at this location.
I’ll give him the same brownie points for using that in a deep South state. (Once I stop all the pigs flying out of my butt.)Report
Or makes the same argument and throws in Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, and agnostics/atheists in the mix.Report
Great stuff.Report
Is Ron Paul really unelectable, or is he unelectable because of our collective imagination that he is unelectable? Sure he says some ‘crazy’ stuff, but on a stage with Bachmann and Santorum . . . how is that disqualifying? But every mention of Paul (except by his freakishly loyal fans) is obliged to point out that he is not electable. Why? (I admit that I think he is unelectable. But I’m not sure if I think that simply because it has been said so many times, or I really think it).
An Obama-Paul general election would be like nothing I have seen in my voting lifetime. Other than the results, I know exactly what Obama-Romney or Obama-Perry, etc election looks like and thinking about it makes me shed a solitary tear. But what happens when Obama gets attacked from the left and right simultaneously? At least it would be a general election worth paying attention to.Report
The reasons Paul is unelectable are legion, but it’s easy to point to just a few that are sufficient on their own:
– His position on the military and foreign policy put him on the wrong side of public opinion by something like 80-20.
– Gold buggery.
– Trafficking in bizarre conspiracy theories like the Amero and the NAFTA Superhighway.Report
He’s not in favor of waterboarding either.
Way to be soft on terror, old-timer!Report
“Is Ron Paul really unelectable, or is he unelectable because of our collective imagination that he is unelectable?”
No, he’s that unelectable.*
Why? Because he wants to eliminate all entitlement programs and safety nets.
Now, there will be a lot of people here that all argue that would be good. (I don’t agree, but I certainly see their argument.) But we have these things not because ‘the government is out of control,’ but because people really, really like and want them. Even if he were to somehow make it out of the primary, he would lose in the biggest electoral college landslide ever. Conservatives might be tempted to rally around a “low tax/privatize SS” flag, but opening the borders, legalizing drugs and throwing in the towel on most culture war issues will stay their hand. Some on the left might be tempted to get out of overseas wars, but I can’t see them risking dismantling the entire safety net system to do so.
*(So are Santorum and Bachmann, I believe – though for different reasons. They are unelectable because they have doubled down so often in an attempt to sway the far right base that even moderates in their own party will swallow the bile and vote O first. Also, one of the two has a tendency to say wildly nutty and easily disproven things, and the other just isn’t that likable and irritates people.)Report
Yeah – I agree with all those things. (I honestly had forgotten about the Amero scare – that wouldn’t play well in commercials!).
I just find it interesting that the prevailing mood (or at least the loudest voice) in the electorate seems to be that we need systemic change. Yet any candidate offering real change is dismissed out of hand, allowing all candidates to not take them seriously.
I don’t think Romney’s problem is religion, or flip-floppery, or his (lack of) personality. His campaign is based around preserving the status quo, conservative version. Hard to get excited about that. But easier to get elected.Report
I’d argue people want systemic change – unless it’ll involve any real change for them that might not be for the better. After all, even Tea Partiers don’t support cuts to Social Security or Medicare.Report
Different parts of the electorate want different kinds of systemic change which the others find mutually unacceptable.
The people who want to shut down Medicare, Social Security, and the EPA and give more tax breaks to billionaires have a fundamentally different vision from those who want universal healthcare, strong unions, and big government action on climate change, and you can’t expect either group to vote for the other’s candidate just because they also want systemic change.Report
I definitely think people like the status quo more then they want to say. Or at least they like the pieces that serve them (as per Jesse). And of course, I agree that different parts of the electorate have mutually exclusive (in some regards) desire for change (as per DarrenG). Clearly no everybody who wants change wants the same change as Paul. But I would (erroneously) expect there to be a variety of different candidates to serve the various viewpoints. But there really aren’t. And so we get the same election every 4 years. *sigh*.
My econ friend would describe this as the political version the hotdog sellers on the beach who inevitably move to the middle to outsell one another.Report
Hard to get excited about that. But easier to get elected.
Yup. File it under ‘the worst form of government except for all the others’ category.Report
What happens in an Obama-Paul election? Your friends at the defense industry along with other conservatives Astroturf a third party shilled by Fox.Report
The defense industry would back Nobel Laureate Obama 100%.Report
How did you know I was friends with the defense industry? They follow me on facebook . . . that does mean we’re friends. Right? Right?Report