Reagan Night [Republicans in the Simi Valley] ... Debate Analysis

On Thursday night, the current crop of Republicans running for president in 2008 met at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, California, for their first debate. National Review Online asked a group of commentators and politicos for their take on this first venture out together.

In terms of the format and the moderators, this was easily the worst political debate I’ve ever seen. Too many questions, too little time, too much focus on silly Internet questioners, and Chris Matthews was simply a buffoon. Why shouldn’t a Republican host a Republican primary debate?

Given that inherent (but equally distributed) burden, the field as a whole did reasonably well. There is a striking contrast between the leading Republicans and the leading Democrats in terms of experience (especially executive experience) and stature. If you had to choose a party based on the two sets of candidates, as they came off in the two recent debates, it’s easy to believe most Americans would choose the GOP.

But individually, who really stood out? If you knew nothing about this race except what you saw tonight, I suspect you would guess the three leading candidates were Romney, McCain, and Huckabee — — probably in that order. All three were poised, sharp, and reasonably presidential. It was hard to see why Giuliani is a frontrunner (indeed, probably the frontrunner) and why Huckabee is so far behind. Giuliani was tired and off balance. He is capable of doing much better than this, but just didn’t show up tonight.

In the end, though, I have to return to the horrendous format, which made this a useless event even for those few of us who watched. I’m not sure we learned anything about who should be the Republican candidate. But I am sure we learned much about who shouldn’t host any more Republican debates.

— Yuval Levin is a fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center and senior editor of The New Atlantis magazine.

Fred Thompson wasn’t there at the Reagan Library Thursday night, but he wasn’t hurt by not being there. (More than one Corner reader last night said he was the winner.) If he was watching to see if any of the frontrunners faltered, he saw that Rudy Giuliani did. If Thompson feels called by his nation, this may be his natural opening.

But I wonder, too, if Senator Thompson — a good man who is doing well for himself and his family without a race — watched the debate and thought, maybe John or that Romney fella will do this nation fine. Because both the senator and governor came off as plausible possibilities for president. McCain was the principled-on-the-war guy we know him to be. Romney showed himself to be a smart, articulate, optimistic, serious leader. If it was a first impression for anyone watching, as I imagine it might have been for anyone flipping away from The Office for a few minutes, it was a good start.

Jaded Washington pundits who think the Latter-Day candidate is a no-go because of his religion should watch Romney’s answer to the dumbest question of the night. Admittedly, that’s a bit of a contest Chris Matthews was in with himself, but his question to Romney about the propriety of Catholic bishops withholding Communion from offending politicians took the cake. Without hesitating, Romney announced it was ’none of his business who Catholic bishops want to give communion to. It was a normal, honest, comforting answer. Would more politicians know when to say “that’s none of my business”.

Honorable mention: Mike Huckabee always seems like an uplifting preacher (he is one, as it happens). He won’t be president, but I like having him around. We’re probably all better for it.

I think the first question we have to answer is “How did MSNBC do?” Answer: Poorly. This presidential debate resembled a game show rather than a political forum. We had three moderators, one of whom insisted on rambling all over the stage to ask questions from the online audience. Those questions made the MTV “Boxers or briefs?” question seem thoughtful and relevant at times. One bright light apparently expected an answer to “What do you dislike most about America?” Lightning-round queries by Matthews left the candidates understandably frustrated when complex questions left no time for good answers. The format also made for uneven candidate participation; we heard less from Rudy Giuliani than we did from Ron Paul.

Mitt Romney had the best night. Calm, warm, thoughtful, and engaging, he looked and sounded like a serious presidential candidate. John McCain and Giuliani didn’t do themselves any favors, and at times did some damage, but managed to rally back to adequacy. Jim Gilmore, Mike Huckabee, and Duncan Hunter made cases as real candidates, while Sam Brownback didn’t quite get over that hump. Tom Tancredo showed no depth outside of immigration. The two embarrassments were Tommy Thompson and Ron Paul. Thompson’s takeaway was that he doesn’t oppose firing people for being gay, while Ron Paul’s was his insistence on answering every question with a discourse on the original intent of the Constitution. Both of them should understand their roles as the GOP’s Crazy Uncle Bobs and return to the attic forthwith.

If Fred Thompson can manage to skip the rest of these debates until the primaries, he might become the consensus Republican nominee. He may have actually won this debate simply by forcing the others to endure this one without him.

The clear winner was Ronald Reagan, bless his optimistic heart. And those eyes! When evildoers looked into Reagan’s eyes, they handed over all their hostages and their spare change.

Or something like that, according to Rudy Giuliani, who did not rise to his poll numbers tonight. In fact, he lost the debate, beginning with the first question when he seemed nervous and disorganized. At no time did he manage to convey the strength and confidence of America’s mayor.

Clearly, Rudy doesn’t do panels well. Worst two answers of the night: He fumbled badly on the difference between Sunni and Shia. Then, when asked whether the increased influence of Christians is good for the U.S., he deflected, saying something like: “Sure, the influence of large numbers of people is always good for the U.S. . . but we have to reach out to others. We need to bring in Democrats.” And, you know, whatever.

McCain made me want to spirit valium to Simi Valley before he followed Osama bin Laden to the Gates of Hell. His answers and delivery seemed canned and cartoonish. But the man gets credit for steely resolve and the most impressive segue of the night: When asked about public funding for stem cell research, he thanked Nancy Reagan for her kindness when he was a POW. No way. McCain was a POW?

And the winner is: Mitt the Good, the Perfect, the Gosh-Darned Smartest of Them All. He was substantive, concise, and humorous, if somewhat over-educated for those who haven’t yet read the Cliff Notes on altered nuclear stem cells. His answer on stem-cell research showed that he has delved deeply into the issue while shedding light on his apparent flip-flop on abortion.

Best answer of the night: When asked (ridiculously) about government intervening when Catholic bishops withhold communion from certain pols, Romney blasted the idea with humor, saying that Roman Catholic bishops “can do whatever the heck they want,” while simultaneously defusing the Mormon issue and shifting focus to radical Islamists.

“This is a nation after all that wants a leader who is a person of faith, but we don’t choose our leader based on what church they go to.” Mormon issue, check. And, “This a nation which also comes together over faith . . . the people we’re fighting, they’re the ones who divide over faith and who decide matters of this nature in the public forum.” That was’ a twofer.

Runner-up goes to Mike Huckabee. Smart, pleasant, knowledgeable, and straightforward, he was the surprise in the Cracker Jack box. “Live Carb-Free: Vote Romney/Huckabee.”

— Kathleen Parker is a nationally syndicated South-Carolina-based columnist.

Ten men stood on stage last night. According to a classic article in psychology, short-term memory can only hold five to nine items at once. So to viewers who lacked a clear mental picture of the Republican field, the debate was a blur. True, it enabled the second-tier candidates to stand next to Giuliani, McCain, and Romney, but they needed something extra to set themselves apart. They didn’t have it. Politically (though not medically), Huckabee would have been better off if he had not lost all that weight. At least people would remember him: “Oh yeah, the fat guy!”

Among the big three, Giuliani turned in the most problematic performance. His abortion comments — “nuanced” if you like them, “hairsplitting” if you don’t — are already making the YouTube rounds. Then again, YouTube is already full of Giuliani-on-abortion clips, so the debate may not make much difference. More annoying was his suggestion that he tamed New York by being optimistic. No, he did it by being a real S.O.B. His dilemma is that his most appealing character trait — his toughness — is the flip side of his least appealing — his abrasiveness. He can’t hide the problem with a smiley face.

— John J. Pitney Jr. is Roy P. Crocker Professor of American Politics at Claremont McKenna College.

First: Mike Huckabee. His answer on free trade — that outsourcing jobs is “criminal” — proved a stinker. But all his other answers ranged from good to very good, while he proved articulate, intelligent, and likeable. He’s still a longshot, of course, but if the debate tonight began with the Big Three and the Seven Dwarfs, it ended with the Six Dwarfs, the Big Fou — well, the Big Three-and-a-Half.

Second: Mitt Romney, who had in some ways the best night — he seemed by far the most relaxed, charming, and engaging — but also the worst, announcing that “I’ve always been personally pro-life,” an answer utterly at odds with the ardently pro-choice position he asserted in his 1990 debate with Ted Kennedy. Is Romney unaware that tens of thousands of the Republican faithful have viewed that debate? Has he never heard of YouTube?

Three: Rudy Giuliani, who had no really good moments while providing what was undeniably the worst when, asked the difference between Shiites and Sunnis, he stumbled awkwardly. Rudy seemed so half-hearted — so unwilling to make an effort, to demonstrate that he actually wants to become president — that I found myself wondering if he’s having second thoughts about running.

— Peter Robinson, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and host of Uncommon Knowledge, is author of How Ronald Reagan Changed My Life.

The good news is that there was not a single cringe-making moment in the debate. None of the 10 GOP contenders is unintelligent, crazy, or even embarrassingly inarticulate. In fact, the seven less popular candidates seemed extremely impressive to me. Tom Tancredo, Jim Gilmore, and Duncan Hunter were firm, intellectually consistent, likeable, and so attractively conservative it made me think Fred Thompson is not needed to round out the field — or anchor the bottom of the ticket. They all have well-formulated ideas across the policy spectrum, from abortion to jihad, taxes to immigration. Any of them would do quite well as a V.P. candidate, Gilmore especially.

I could live without Sam Brownback, who lists too far to the social agenda, and Mike Huckabee, who fights hard to keep natural glibness at bay. They both speak in party line generalities about defense, and dealing with Iran, Iraq, and the jihadis. Huckabee is, of course, correct that anyone who can keep his religious beliefs from influencing his policy perspective doesn’t have serious religious beliefs. Sooner or later Mitt Romney will have to address that.

Tommy Thompson, who lacks all charisma, was an innovative and effective conservative governor of a liberal state, and acquits himself well, especially on domestic issues. And Ron Paul — “Dr. No” — warms the hearts of all who believe in small government and personal liberty. Alas, he has always been too principled to be effective. But he is quite intelligent and keeps the field pointed to the true libertarian/conservative north, as he did last night on the issue of national ID cards, which everyone seemed to embrace till he began fulminating, at which point Giuliani and the others “clarified” that the cards were only for aliens.

The bad news, however, is that the top three contenders were less impressive than one would wish. Even where I liked his answer, I thought Mitt Romney sounded a little pat, canned, and occasionally just plain fake as he aggressively pushed his newfound conservatism. Example: Finessing his stem cell answer with references to a particular process for generating the cells that no one has every heard of. While working hard to seem genial, he remains inaccessible. Is there a there there? What does he really think? Who would he be in a crisis? Nothing in this — to be sure, the very first public round — would answer those questions.

John McCain was very energetic, if, as always, not entirely directed. He looked more presidential than when he made his official announcement in a black sweater last week. He was clear and articulate about defending America and the ways in which he would do that differently from President Bush. He was hardcore about cutting spending. Those are two big and central items — and if a president could “win” the war against Islamo-fascism and cut spending and government, that would be a brilliant legacy. Can he? He seems to lack a certain intellectual depth. It bothers me that he continues to hew to liberal immigration policies, and yet will not defend them. He should lose that mumbo-jumbo about bipartisan outreach and finding Democrats for his Cabinet. Has that ever worked?

Perhaps because I wish to be able to support Rudy Giuliani wholeheartedly, I was disappointed with his performance. Not that it was terrible or anything. But the audience wanted to hear core political philosophy and clear policy direction. Instead he related everything to his record as mayor, which seemed too concrete and reductivist in a funny way. He fudged the first question about his views on abortion — not good. But he was forthright about respecting “a woman’s right to exercise her own conscience” the second go. Forthright is good. And it was nice to hear him defend President Bush’s post-9/11 record on domestic terrorism. All in all a far more impressive round than the other party last week.

>> The two embarrassments were Tommy Thompson and Ron Paul. Thompson’s takeaway was that he doesn’t oppose firing people for being gay Both of them should understand their roles as the GOP’s Crazy Uncle Bobs and return to the attic forthwith. <<

Here's Tommy actual responce to that question:

MR. HARRIS: Governor Thompson, same theme. If a private employer finds homosexuality immoral, should he be allowed to fire a gay worker?

MR. THOMPSON: I think that is left up to the individual business. I really sincerely believe that that is an issue that business people have to got to make their own determination as to whether or not they should be.

So Tommy Thompson is "embarrassing" the GOP for saying private employers can hire and fire people they want without the government's permission? If that's embarrassing, give me more embarrassing Republicans. What I find embarassing is the writer who posts this drivel about Thompson is on National Review.

I cannot believe the debate for the GOP. I watched the Dems debate and nobody chided them for flip flopping much except for voting for the Iraq war and then opposing it like Edwards and Hillary did. The Dems get Brian Williams, the GOP gets Chris Matthews, a liberal Clinton kool-aid drinker who used to work for the great aforementioned prevariacator. Can you say bias. Did you hear some of the stupid ass questions? What is the difference between Sunni and Shiites? What do you dislike about America most? Do you think churches should deny communion to certain individuals blah blah blah? Do you think a business should deny or fire employees for sexual orientation? What was this a liberal litmus test? Who is the ass clown asking the questions walking across the stage like the candidates should be graced by his presence? Who was the loser sitting at the desk asking all the stupid questions from people on the internet? Why Matthews allowed to dictate the course of the debate. This was a debate to highlight the GOP candidates, they were not on Crossfire! The MSNBC website did not post the debate was on their network until around 2 or 3 pm PCT. I remember the Dems got the front page on msn.com the day of the debate early in the morning. Was the American Idol results more important for internet viewers to know? Who got cut, Phil and the JT look alike. One thing which was uninanimous among the GOP candidates was no personal attacks between debaters, and no raising of the voice in anger like that loser from Alaska whose name is not important enough to mention. I was annoyed for most of the debate becuase of the dumb ass questions, and the role Matthews played. I would have loved for someone to acknowledge the fact none of the candidates shied away from the known bias coming to them and did not refuse to particpate in an MSNBC sponsored debate. I can’t wait for the rest of the debates, lets see what lefty loser they will throw at us next time because we know none of them will participate in a debate sponsored by fox. They prefer to abstain from the tough questions.

Looks like Romney got his money’s worth in his prep. Not only do these analysts think he did well, but so far FR is voting in our latest poll that he did himself the most good.

He has learned how to appear less stiff, although he still looks like a Ken doll.

I may vote for him.

In this analysis this was said of Romney:

His answer on stem-cell research showed that he has delved deeply into the issue

Of course, his wife has MS, and he has delved into stem cell research. I heard his wife give Larry King an answer on why she opposes embryonic stem cell research and it was absolutely the best answer I've ever heard on the subject. And coming from a woman with an illness like MS, it was hard-hitting.

Duncan Hunter is the man they fear the most. You’re talking about a solid man, as you saw last night, who actually has the strongest credentials on the all-important defense issue. And, of all things the Demonrats and media like to attack, Hunter happens to be a combat vet who served in Vietnam and his son has done 2 tours of duty in Iraq and is about to be shipped overseas again to serve in Afghanistan. http://www.gohunter08.com

Romney is good looking and personable.

Having said this, I'm disinclined to consider him because of his recent (& I have a hard time believeing) flip flop on abortion.

His 'ah hah' moment only happened a couple years ago..(correct me if I'm wrong)

Wouldn't this be about the time he considered this run for the White House?

And I didn't like him doing the.. 'they did it too' ..blame game by invoking Reagan, Goldwater, etc.

I know a lot of folks this morning are singing the praises of Romney.

I find him too slick.

I heard his wife give Larry King an answer on why she opposes embryonic stem cell research and it was absolutely the best answer I've ever heard on the subject. And coming from a woman with an illness like MS, it was hard-hitting.

This is the main reason why I'm willing to take them at their word when they claim a profound change to pro-life. It would be so easy for them to be pro-choice and pro-cloning and all the rest. But they aren't and they speak forcefully to the subject, especially Mrs. Romney. It's truly admirable, noble actually.

Not to be politically crass but Mitt's lovely wife is the best counter we could ever have against the next time Michael J. Fox goes off his meds deliberately and shoots more commercials to advocate infanticide to save his worthless hide. Fox has clearly succumbed to the liberal delusion that murdering infants can be a Good Thing. He is essentially a modern pagan, believing in a blood sacrifice of the innocent for a divine blessing. He wishes to pass the unborn children over to sacrifice to Moloch. And he will pay for this in eternity if he does not repent it.

If Jim Talent had been able to talk her into doing a commercial for him after Michael Fox, he would have won his election.

You're right. I've thought the same thing. I won't fault them though for not having intervened in that particular election. It's a pretty personal thing. But she has grown more bold about asserting her position in a thoughtful way, sensitive to those who suffer dire illness but never backing down from the anti-cloning and anti-embryonic position they've taken.

That is Romney’s biggest handicap, that he looks like a Ken doll.

But Duncan Hunter came in for some unexpected criticism from a former consituent of his district, my Mom, who said she’d heard him speak at a forum supposed to be honoring someone and he spent most of his time giving a diatribe against John Glenn instead.

She thought he was nasty and didn’t like him at all.

So, there are worst faults that being slick, I guess.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.