The Candidates
Featured Archives
I might be in the minority on this particular issue, but I didn’t think the debate’s format was that bad. I was extremely delighted that audience reaction wasn’t encouraged. When you have a loud and enthusiastic audience, it cheapens the atmosphere, bringing to mind images of tailgates and the wave. The candidates also play to the audience reaction more in that format, and it takes away from the details with canned lines. Now, I think this debate could’ve been a lot better if there were less candidates, but I’ve always said that we should be inclusive, not exclusive, so I won’t go that far.
Of course, as a Thompson supporter, I will spend more time talking about his performance, but here is how I graded today’s debate:
Fred Thompson- A: Thompson’s performance was everything that his supporters had been expecting from him. In every debate, Thompson has been the one candidate whose performance’s have always checked out, factwise. Today, he finally put it all together. Some say it is too late, and maybe they’re right, but today’s showing determined two things: 1. Fred’s not dead yet 2. The leader some have been holding out for.
He had three moments that could still define his campaign. The first was his refusal to play by the moderators rules and be reduced to an answer by raising his hand. That, my friends, is leadership. Even Mitt Romney, who had a fine performance, applauded Thompson’s reaction. Thompson wouldn’t back down to the moderators compromise of shorter time. It has been obvious that in prior debates that Thompson seemed somewhat bored by the whole process. Now one knows why. He showed that he was a man who values substance, and to quote Philip Klein, a “leader rather than a follower” for conservatives.
The second moment was when he stood up and criticized the NEA. All of the candidates, with the exception of one, are likely not the biggest fans of the organization, but it was Thompson who showed the backbone to say it on national television, in the most important debate so far. Most of the candidates on the stage are opposed to the organization (with the exception of one), but Thompson was the only one willing to step up to the plate and say what many a conservative thinks. To be fair, other candidates have criticized national organizations, but to do so at a debate being shown on three or four different cable channels, and one that is going to be replayed on numerous occasions in Iowa and nationally, Thompson was the one who stepped up to the microphone.
The third moment was his line about telling Congress that he’s happy to cooperate with them, but if not, he’s going to go over their heads and talk to the American people.” (h/t Klein) Many of the candidates gave a long list of goals set out for their first year in office, but they sounded more like canned lines to score points with voters. Not Thompson. He didn’t lay out a long list of ideas that sound more like wishful thinking, but that he would listen to Congress, but take it straight to the American people.
Mitt Romney- A: Thompson gains the top spot because he scored the defining moments of the debate, but Mitt Romney showed that he has the command of the issues and the presence required to be on the main stage. His bullet points hit on all the major themes, but his attention to detail scored him points with me. Although I have never qualified as one of the “Antibots,” I have been one of Governor Romney’s biggest skeptics. Lately though, he has been turning in performances that I have been thoroughly impressed with, and he has shown a human side, which I doubted to exist for a while.
Rudy Giuliani- B: Mayor Giuliani had a performance that likely won’t affect his current standings on the national stage, but won’t gain any real momentum in Iowa. Like some of the other candidates on the stage, he seemed to get lost in the crowd at times, and his answer on abortion probably won’t win him any converts. When given the opportunity, the mayor did fine but didn’t shine today, which is what we have come to expect of him.
Ron Paul- C: Love him or hate him, Dr. Paul usually makes his points known in debates. Today, he had his moments, but couldn’t tie them all together coherently, and he didn’t perform up to his usual standard. He didn’t make any sense. Usually, Paul has at least a moment or two where I find myself nodding along with what he says, but he didn’t have that today. Even though I usually don’t agree with anything else he says during the debates, I have always given him higher marks because he has performed well. He didn’t do that today.
John McCain- C-: In the past, I have always given McCain extremely high marks on his debate performances. He has always seemed to find the exact moment to strike, but that moment didn’t come today. If Giuliani blended in to the crowd today, then McCain got lost in the shuffle. Part of the blame can be attributed to the number of candidates on stage and the lack of time that was focused on each candidate. This time, McCain just didn’t have the opportunity to steal the spotlight.
Mike Huckabee- D: Like McCain, I have usually have given Huckabee high marks on his performances. I think he has performed so well on each occasion that he has set high expectations for himself, and today he failed to meet them. He not only didn’t stand out, but stood in opposition to many a conservative position. He failed to perform up to the standard expected of the frontrunner, and he has worn out his one liners. Everyone following the campaigns know he is a supporter of the FAIR tax and is socially conservative, but what else defines him as a candidate? What are his plans to fight the War on Terror? How does he plan to deal with entitlements? In his prior performances, Huckabee has been able to steal the show with one liners and his appealing mannerisms, but as a frontrunner, much more is expected of you. Nothing he said stood out today. The stakes of the campaign are much higher than who has the best understanding of the Gospel, and frankly, he didn’t do anything to prove to me that he is ready for the presidency. Huckabee has been under intense scrutiny for the last week, and how he handles it could be what determines his chances of victory. In Arkansas, he was notoriously thin skinned to criticism, and he must show that he has what it takes to lead the country.
December 12th, 2007 at 9:10 pm
Tommy,
I actually agree with your analysis, although I would reverse the order of #’s 1 and 2, so I guess I don’t totally agree with it. But you’re almost spot on.
December 12th, 2007 at 9:11 pm
I would agree with you except I would have Romney a little ahead of Fred. He articulated all of his points amazingly well today. Fred did also, but as you know Mitt is smoother and can say a lot more in his time alotted!
December 12th, 2007 at 9:13 pm
Tommy – this is a continuation from your initial post about the debate complimenting FDT. I was referring to your comment about not just regurgitating campaign emails. Obviously, you weren’t trying to start anything with your comment so you can just forget I even made the comment.
December 12th, 2007 at 9:20 pm
RayinNH,
No problem. I always say that when I post debate reaction. I just don’t favor campaign talking points.
December 12th, 2007 at 9:30 pm
I found it interesting that Keyes was the first to mention the Fair Tax. That must have thrown Huck for a loop and completely messed up his entire plan for debate. At least the moderator did give him at least 1 religion question.
I agree with your analysis here except for point #3 on Thompson. To me, he sounded like he was going wishy-washy on the issue. While the others may have had a “laundry list” at least they had goals. That was the only thing I think Thompson did poorly. As he and Mitt shared the win for this debate.
Unfortunately, I would rank Huck higher than a “D” simply because he didn’t get beat up. He should get a little credit, even as a back-handed compliment, for not getting smacked down by the other candidates. I hope he is sending a big check to the Register for their debate debacle. They, without a doubt, planned this debate to protect the huckmeister.
December 12th, 2007 at 9:32 pm
Tommy (blush) methinks you have a man crush on Fred Thompson. You are SO faithful!
I have a woman crush on Mitt Romney (believe me, it’s not for his good looks, but he is just so amazingly professional, competent and knowledgeable and … well, just like you can go on and on about Fred, I could go on and on about Mitt, but I will spare you all.
December 12th, 2007 at 9:33 pm
For those who are interested in watching the debate, it’s going to be re-played via Cspan-2 at 9PM EST, but they are running a bit late and haven’t started yet.
It’s best on CSPAN where you can watch it without the commentary, bias, and spin by the media types .
Here is the link:
http://play.rbn.com/play.asx?url=cspan/cspan/wmlive/cspan2v.asf&proto=mms?mswmext=.asx
December 12th, 2007 at 9:34 pm
Tommy, I totally agree. Fred won on what people will talk about with his soundbites and delivered a solid performance. Mitt won for people who actually watched the debate so overall it would probably be a tie. Huckabee as usual is all hat and no cattle.
I really hope that Thompson can get back his supporters that have gone to Huckabee in the last month. Even though Thompson will be going after Romney along with Huckabee, Thompson is Romney’s best ally because there are some Huckabee supporters who might never vote for Romney, but who would vote for Thompson. Thompson can bring Huckabee down by more than Mitt can.
Romney really hasn’t dropped much considering Huckabee has gained 20 points, that probably means that very few of Huckabee’s supporters will switch back to Romney. Romney doesn’t need very many of them back, he just needs them to go somewhere else, like to Fred.
If Huckabee doesn’t get anymore than the Pat Robertson/Gary Bauer/Alan Keyes portion Romney can win (In the past that has been about 25%. I believe Huckabee is just about guaranteed to get that much.) If Huckabee gets a little more support than that it is a toss-up that probably favors Huckabee. Either way, I am cheering on Fred not only because I like what I see in him lately, but also because he will be Romney’s best ally in Iowa.
December 12th, 2007 at 9:36 pm
Great analysis, Tommy — from a Mitbot to a Fredbot (am I the first to coin that?).
Fine job, Tommy, and as always, I hold you in high regard. You earn the respect you get on this site.
December 12th, 2007 at 9:41 pm
all hat and no cattle! I like that – is that a Texan saying, or just a Southern saying?
I must say, that no one can hold a candle to the one-liners that come out of Southerners’ mouths.
I know — I dated a guy from Mississippi for six years. He would always make me laugh with his one-liners:
An empty wagon makes the most noise, etc. You get my meaning, right?
December 12th, 2007 at 9:42 pm
I think it’s fair to say that Thompson won on personality, and Romney won on policy. Thompson said (basically) there are programs important enough to raise taxes for, which would be held against him if he was leading in Iowa. Rudy sounded too pro-choice, which would be a big issue if he was leading in Iowa. I don’t think Huckabee did any damage to his campaign despite sounding like a liberal. I think people are supporting him more for his personality than his policy. With that said, I wouldn’t be supprised if he took a big tumble in the polls soon, not because of bad performances, but because his support is soft and unaware of his actual positions.
December 12th, 2007 at 9:42 pm
Romney is down by, I believe, 5% in the latest poll in Iowa, and a superior organization can probably overcome a 3% deficit. If 1-3% move away from Huckabee, some to Fred, some to Mitt, it could turn into a snowball – in the reverse direction as the past two weeks.
December 12th, 2007 at 9:59 pm
Tommy, speaking of “substance”, do you know yet if the transcript of Fred’s hour-long session with Charles Rose has been typed out?
December 12th, 2007 at 10:08 pm
Bethtopaz (#9) I agree that Tommy has proved his worthiness. I hope to see him again somewhere in 2012 or later. But then, perhaps he won’t have a candidate he can get behind as strongly as he did with Fred. Well, I can be hopeful
December 12th, 2007 at 10:10 pm
ABC gave it to Huck. Heh.
December 12th, 2007 at 10:12 pm
Hrm, I thought Paul did pretty good with the time he had. Sorta funny how Tancredo, Keyes, and Hunter all got more time than Paul. Only Fred Thompson got less time, apparently.
Glad to see the inflation tax is being mentioned
.
December 12th, 2007 at 10:15 pm
Yes, SGS, one thing I have to say for Tommy is his genuine support for his candidate and his genuine effort to be objective.
For myself, I have NO PROBLEM with Fred Thompson’s policy stances. I like them all, despite his past votes and support for McCain-Feingold, etc. BUT … I have a problem with Fred as a person. I just don’t see him as ready for the …
Most
Demanding
24/7
Job
On
The
Planet
That
Requires
Eternal
Vigilance
and
a
Substantial
Handle
on
the
Issues
Facing
our
World
Today.
For me, the only candidate that’s viable is: Mitt Romney.
It seems so obvious … but then, you know, I’m biased.
December 12th, 2007 at 10:20 pm
And for me, Romney is just about the worst person for the job. And I’m not biased.
December 12th, 2007 at 10:29 pm
Looks like Huckabee took no bullets today. The fact that nobody made gaffes benefits Huck the most.
December 12th, 2007 at 10:30 pm
I think that Senator Thompson’s bold and confident “No Hand Shows” will likely get played and replayed much like Reagan’s famous, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall” sound bite.
December 12th, 2007 at 10:31 pm
18, “…And I’m not biased.” That’s a joke right?
December 12th, 2007 at 10:35 pm
Psycheout,
No surprise. The entire liberal establishment (including ABC) is in the tank for Huck.
December 12th, 2007 at 10:41 pm
Refusing to raise your hand is now equivalent to “tear down this wall”??
December 12th, 2007 at 10:41 pm
#21 No joke.
December 12th, 2007 at 10:57 pm
Debate winners
1. Romney
2. Fred
3. Rudy
4. McCain
5. Huck
December 12th, 2007 at 11:10 pm
I think you are right on with your analysis Tommy. I think that Fred gets top billing as the winner because of his fiesty exchange with the moderator, and his zinger on Romney. I too was impressed with Romney’s answers, and the fact that he just appeared more presidential than the others. I too have seen a more personal side of Romney as of late, which I hope continues. Rich Lowry from NR said as much yesterday on the Hugh Hewitt show yesterday. That Romney has a soul that is passionate about this country, and he needs to let that show through more often. Great analysis IMO.
December 12th, 2007 at 11:11 pm
#18 – Please would you let me know WHY you think he is the worst for the job?? What stances do you think he has that would disqualify him for POTUS? Please do tell.
December 12th, 2007 at 11:13 pm
ACT Blog,
I agree that if as a result of this and attacks against Huck on his stances on the issues can shift 1-3% away from Huck, that could signal the beginning of a downward spiral for the Huckster. Let’s hope so, as he would destroy the conservative coalition.
December 13th, 2007 at 12:07 am
I would never vote for Romney because:
1. I don’t know what he actually believes. I do not know a single person who as an adult completely changed his philosophy. What’s more, his conversions were all politically convenient.
2. He was a one-term governor who could not have gotten reelected.
3. He lies about his record. For example, he says he did not raise taxes.
4. He is not credible on immigration.
5. I do not believe freedom requires religion and to suggest that it does reflects either an ignorance of or willingness to disobey our Constitution.
6. His comments about his sons serving America by driving around in an RV.
7. His needing to check with the lawyers before defending the country.
8. His lack of foreign policy experience.
Gosh, I did not know I had that many reasons.
December 13th, 2007 at 1:18 am
Well folks,
The Fred conservatives were looking for finally showed up in this debate. But is this just a “one time wonder”of a performance or can he build on this and regain his footing as a serious candidate? It may be too little to late.
If he can place a respectable third in Iowa and Huck beats Romney,and if McCain takes New Hampshire,Rudy or Mitt take Nevada and Michigan, then Fred has a good chance to start a comeback in South Carolina.
However,I really thought Mitt started to connect with real people tonite and started to demonstrate his potential as a serious Presidential candidate.Noone has a better stage presence and he showed “gravitas” in his poise and answers tonite.
For the first time I believe if he wins Iowa and New Hampshire, he will be the favorate for the nomination and has a real chance to win the general election against either Hillary or Obama.
I support Rudy,but Mitt has now moved slightly past McCain as my second choice.
December 13th, 2007 at 1:44 am
Fred Thompson has always had a consistent, solid set of policies he stands on firmly. You can trust what he says because his background and history supports his statements. The only thing that bothers some people is his lack of energy, but he shined today, and he’s going full force on the campaign trail in Iowa.
He’s really the only real conservative running. He’s solid and his policies are sound. He’s got my vote by a mile.
December 13th, 2007 at 2:20 am
It’s interesting how the standards differ for a debate performance depending on where the candidate sits in the horserace.
For someone who’s sitting in the back of the pack, debate success seems to hinge on personality. It’s why Huckabee came on top in the last debate: his personality and humour stood out. It’s also why Thompson did well in this debate. If I had to take a guess, I would say that those who are currently losing in the polls need to show that they aren’t losers in the debates as well.
On the other hand, those up in front need to show policy to do well. A lot of people criticized both Romney and Giuliani in the last debate. A line like “sanctuary mansion” would have played well for someone looking to come from behind, but for a front runner it comes off as petty and gimmicky. Likewise with “sanctuary city” (although that has a bit more weight behind it). For a front runner to justify front runner status, he needs to have more than clever one liners. He needs to have more than passion. He needs cattle to go with the hat, so to speak.
December 13th, 2007 at 2:27 am
What do people think of Thompson’s chances as a VP with various candidates? McCain is the obvious choice, but McCain doesn’t have a good shot at the candidacy right now. Thompson has been critical of both Huckabee and Romney (when asked about a Thompson/Huckabee ticket, he responded, “You got teh order right,” and left it at that). But I think it could be a big coup for Romney especially. Shades of Reagan/Bush, Southern representation, and a VP who is surprisingly good at policy to go with a President who excels at campaigning. Not to mention it would demonstrate that Romney really could rebuild the Republican coalition.
The biggest benefit for Thompson? A good shot at 2016. The Senate is a pretty poor place to launch a candidacy from, but VP gives solid experience and a wide variety of credentials.
Any Huckabee/Giuliani supporters want to chime in with their thoughts? How would Thompson look as VP with your guy?
December 13th, 2007 at 3:54 am
Feltcher if you can’t admit to have bias, than 1. you’re lying and being arrogant or two if you actually don’t have biases that would mean that you don’t have convictions, I can’t believe someone would actually have the gall to say they don’t have any bias.
December 13th, 2007 at 8:34 am
Romney’s endless weak-spined pandering to the voters with his talk about making government more efficient has got to be unmasked. Like Fred says, it’s the transfer payments that are killing us. Every administration has launched efficiency campaigns and none of them have done much because efficiency is not the problem.
Either Romney knows this and he’s lying or Romney doesn’t know this and he’s an idiot. For the life of me, I can’t figure out why anyone would vote for Romney over Fred.