GOP Post Debate Impressions

I've now had the opportunity to watch the entire debate video.  You have no idea how maddening it was to find that CNN's Adobe Flash powered live streaming would not play on my Touchpad, especially since this was the first debate where the candidates really mixed it up.  Here are my quick impressions on how folks did:

Perry: Clearly, he had to show some more energy and life in this debate and he did manage to do that. That's the positive.  On the down side, he seems to be a bit of a one trick pony in terms of debate strategies. He hit Romney hard with the illegal alien issue and returned to it later in the debate, but I'm unsure what that gets him going forward.  He got it off, but seems to me that's only good for one debate, at best two.  You gotta have something more beyond that.  Perhaps its useful if it serves to drive up Romney's negatives, but I'm actually not sure there is a lot of ground to be made there, since with Romney polling in the 25% range, his negatives seem to be already priced into his standing with the conservative electorate.  He's going to have to do more than remind people that Romney is a squishy conservative, he's gotta show he's got some better ideas.  Verdict: Potentially arrests his slide, but didn't gain any ground or seriously damage Romney.

Romney: It wasn't his smoothest performance.  When challenged, he got a bit manic and stammery, but by and large managed to keep his composure and fire back.  He backed Newt down and made him admit that he supported an individual mandate and managed to rhetorically answer Perry's charges with a nice soft on immigration hit of his own relative to the magnet effect of Perry's in state tuition subsidies for illegal aliens.  There were some displays of chinks in the facade, but he recovered decently and you can bet the next debate in November he's going to be ready for those attacks both defensively and with offensive hits at the ready in response. UPDATE: Erikson at RedState points out a couple of slips I noted too but neglected to mention, namely, Romney saying he didn't get the job done in MA on bringing health care costs down and his not so flattering slip that when he confronted that mowing company about employing illegals, he was seemingly most concerned about how it would look, him being a public official and all. Erikson has another post up today noting the Obamaesque qualities of Mitt. If I was Perry, I'd start playing that card now, though he's got some Bushesque qualities of his own that may turn folks off.  If Romney and Perry start effectively dealing each other body blows, Cain could be the beneficiary with a little game raising on his part. Verdict: Bled a little, showed some chinks that could be exploited, but no real damage to momentum and he can recover.

Cain:  I expected to see some major action come his way on 999, and came it did.  Cain did okay, but I think he lost a bit of the momentum that 999 has given him. You can tell people they don't understand the plan a time or two, but at some point when pressed with specific objections, you should come prepared to back up your assertion that they don't get it.  Cain did some of this, but not nearly enough, for example when Romney challenged him on specifics about what people would pay.  This was Cain's golden opportunity to illuminate the plan for voters and push back on his opponents, but he kept talking apples and oranges.  Cain is a mathematician and has the intellectual chops to engage in an explanatory debate (see this video of him taking on Bill Clinton, wonk extraordinaire in the 80's on health care).  He's got to display that again to make the case on 999.  Its not as simple as he says, and he has not convincingly rebutted the assertions of his opponents that its not hideously regressive.  Cain has also got some Obama type qualities of his own, namely lack of experience in the world of government. Its not the same as business.  He's a decision maker from the business world.  Maybe thats enough, maybe its not.  Either way, he's got to raise his campaign game about 5 notches right now if he wants to maintain top tier candidate status.  Fundraising, organization and get that brain/mouth filter problem fixed to control those negotiate with terrorists gaffes. Verdict: We still predict that Cain will NOT be the nominee and his performance under fire underscores one reason why: he's not doing enough to make the case for the date he brought to the party, 999.

Bachman: She's largely disappeared from relevance in the debate and she is rapidly losing mind share.  The woman is not particularly imaginative and 5 debates in, she should be laying out more clearly what her vision for the country is beyond "Kill Obamacare".  There is a lot more to the gig. While she's consistently hitting her themes, she doesn't sound like she knows more beyond the basic talking points she hits all the time. You can't keep going to that well every debate.  She also blew another hole in her credibility by referencing anchor babies.  Its a nice red meat topic and lends itself well to that audience, but its been looked into and its bunk.

Santorum: Raised his mindshare a bit this time around with a good challenge to Romney about health care and noting that his opponents supported TARP, including the "businessmen" Cain and Romney. Is there more to the guy than just being combative is what I want to know and so far, I have not seen it yet.

Gingrich: Not going to win, appreciate the intellectual gravitas he brings to the stage. People say veep potential, but I'm not sure Newt would take that job.

Ron Paul: Doesn't stand a chance, but is usually coming with interesting comments and its great to see somebody on the stage who seems genuinely passionate in their beliefs, not merely political, even if some of the stuff they go for seems nutty.

Related articles

• Perry is still my favorite Not-Romney candidate (bokertov.typepad.com)
• Cain, The Big Winner (conservativetickler.wordpress.com)
• Brutal new Romney ad: Rick Perry's a moron (hotair.com)
• Who won the Vegas fight? (hotair.com)
• Four takeaways from the GOP debate in Las Vegas (csmonitor.com)

Yeah, He Said It

Obama's reply during Charlie Gibson's interview when asked about the fact that McCain didn't mention Ayers during the debate

“[H]e wasn’t willing to say it to my face”

Political Season's Vice Presidential Debate Prediction

A debate between United States vice presidential candidates Joe Biden and Sarah Palin is scheduled to take place on October 2, 2008, at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri.<sup>1

Our Prediction:

Biden is going to get his teeth kicked in.</sup>

Debate Warfare - Real Time Commentary

I'll be issuing my New Hampshire predictions after the debate

Unfortunately I was out at a going away party for a dear friend and started my debate coverage late. So I only caught the end of the republican slugfest as they were asked about Obama. Clearly they were consistently talking about Clinton as thought she would be the nominee and the moderators interjected, wait a sec, what if Obama is the nominee? Another body blow to the idea of the inevitable Hillary nomination.

8:30 pm - I caught the tail end of the republican debate where the republican candidates were talking about Obama. Their responses were a good preview of the major attack points against a potential Obama nominee - tax and spend liberal, wants to create welfare state, no executive experience, no national security experience, wrong on life, wrong on same sex marriage.

These are areas where I do have differences of opinion with Obama and the issues he will have to defend against if he becomes the nominee and faces off against the eventual republican nominee.

9:15 pm - Clinton and Richardson in particular sound like foreign policy geopolitical neophytes. Richardson's idea that the US can ask Musharraf to step aside is idiotic (see the cross post from Stratfor for the reasons why). Clinton's thought that we can ask Musharraf to share control of Pakistan's nuclear weapons is equally silly. Obama so far has not stepped in it, but all of them are foolish to answer so specifically a hypothetical and then expound on that. Obama did the best because he was able to give the most focused answer because he got the most focused hypothetical. None of them sound as though they have a hard geopolitical analysis.

9:35 pm - The moderator question on healthcare touched off a discussion that clearly highlights the tactical approach of Edwards tonight, which is to augment and amplify Obama's attacks on Clinton and defend his flank to some extent. Damaging Hillary is to his benefit. And he plays attack dog to Obama's statesman and I wonder if he's looking down the road to be a possible veep to Obama? Richards is highlighting his experience and calling for civility, and further seals his doom after the dumb answers on foreign policy, because as a tactical matter, his campaign benefits if Hillary is damaged too. Highlighting his experience draws out a plus for him, but I think only reinforces Hillary as a choice over him since you could argue hers is better and if you are going with experience, then go Hillary would go that line of argument. Playing for a veep spot under Hillary?

9:47 pm - The best answer on Iraq came from Obama. However, it did not contain any recognition of the geopolitical reality and role of Iran in our decision making there, or of the need to prevent Iranian hegemony in the region detrimental to our interests. Hillary's answer of starting withdrawal in 60 days is again a too tactical answer, as is Edwards answer about withdrawing and giving a number! Richardson continues with that by saying he will get them out in a year. Obama gave a better conceptual answer about what principles or assumptions he would use in making his decision and avoiding these specific answers about how he would end the war. I think its a mistake to lock themselves in now, before they know everything they will know on day 2 of the presidency.

10:04 pm - Richardson does not have sufficient killer instinct. He's asked if executive experience is necessary for a president, and he doesn't say yes! Then he goes on to tout his resume. Edwards is a better attack dog for Obama's change point than Richardson is for Clinton's experience point. Then he follows up by saying that youth is no detriment, which is a nod to Edwards and Obama. His debate warfare skills are not good. Edwards is talking about how this fight is deep inside him. He is being as one blogger called him "the angry white man". I'm not sure thats any better a political positioning on him than it would be on Obama.

Hillary demonstrates political killer instinct one second and ineptness the next. When asked if she can do things the others can't, she says a firm yes, then when asked again, she equivocates and says she is only making her case. I liked the first answer better, and why are you scared to say you can do something they can't? She does score points right after by referencing how Bill Clinton made major change to reduce the deficit, raise taxes and improve the economy. Obama makes a nice rhetorical counterpoint about the power of words to inspire and engage to counter Hillary's point that that is meaningless. Bill gets after Edwards about his anger and how you need a coalition, that his anger is not helpful. Richardsons tactics tonight don't make a lot of sense to me. He's not really differentiating himself at all, since talking experience does not really help him, but helps Hillary and if Hillary is dominant, he is out.

Obama and Hillary are talking craziness about carbon taxes and cap and trade initiatives. I don't know much about that, but what I do know is that I don't want to pay any more taxes! Curse their tax and spend ways!

10:38 pm - the democratic debate wraps and here's my take; Edwards further demonstrates his unelectability as he continues what is now beginning to sound like a strident, angry ranting against evil multinational corporations. Richardson's debate performance has done nothing to break him from the pack or distinguish him in my mind in anyway. He was a complete non entity, doing very little for himself and actually providing tepid support for Hillary. He tried to be above the fray with the consequence that he never got in it. Barack had a confident mistake free performance, no gaffes, though I found his carbon tax enthusiasm frightening. Hillary's performance was defensive. Mildly pointed attacks, frustrated entreaties that she's been making change for years, that she is a change candidate. It was the performance of someone not entirely on sure footing. In earlier debates, she was more confident and spoke with a more commanding assurance about the issues and she took more risks. Now, she's being careful. She wants to go to the body on Obama, but she has not quite figured out how to do it in a substantive way and not a negative one. If she doesn't figure that out soon, she may find her prospects eroding even further.

Waiting for Obama to Sting Like A Bee

A Weekend of Skirmishing for Obama and Clinton - New York Times

The Obama camp is circling, jabbing, trying to lay a glove on Hillary Clinton. Looking for an angle of attack that will stick. Hillary's misstep in the recent debates have opened a very small chink in her armor. Obama is worrying at the chink, trying to put stress on it and turn it into a full borne crack.

Obama has shown that he can float like a butterfly. Now he's got to sting like a bee. I keep waiting for the gloves to come off. He's got to find a way to directly put into play the assumption of Hillary's experience and greater fitness for the Presidency. He needs to find a way to swiftboat that assumption. The republicans torpedoed the contrast of Kerry's aura of being a combat tested leader vs. Bush's questionable service record by directly questioning Kerry's service in Vietnam. They cast doubt on his bravery under fire, they ridiculed his actions after coming back from Nam and when they were through, Kerry's combat tested image had been wrecked and turned into a liability he had to angrily defend.

This is Obama's challenge and thus far he has either been unwilling or unable to find a way to question what I think is an implicit assumption that Hillary is more qualified because she was a first lady for 8 years. I mean that is clearly what her claim of "readiness to lead from
Day I" rests on. That being the wife of the President qualifies you to be the President. Obama has to knee cap that argument. His campaign strategy thus far has sought to answer the issue of experience by establishing his bona fides to lead vs. hers, an approach which implicitly validates her as being the more experienced leader.

His current angle of attack is better, basically asserting that she is more experienced at being a slick politician, adept at not giving a straight answer, an angle that opened up after the last debate. He's got her a little on the defensive, but he's got to go to the body on her, which I think means he's got to directly attack the assumption that she is more experienced because she was married to the President. He's got to make that seeming qualification seem almost meaningless. But doing so will mean he'll have to get his hands dirty. I'm not sure he's ready to go there.

But I think his problem is even a little bigger than that. I like Obama, but I don't feel like he has been very definitive about where he stands. I don't feel like I have any major policy positions that he champions that really help to define the guy. Its not enough to say why Hillary is not the one, he's got to say why he is. I'm waiting for him to find his center, the core of what his campaign means and what his presidency would be about. When he finds his center that defines and sets him apart from Hillary and the rest of the pack as well, then he will be on his way.