GOP Iowa Debate Review

The GOP held a debate in Iowa on Thursday.  I’ve skipped most of the debates, but this one was a big deal because it was the last one before the Iowa caucus in early January.  It did not disappoint.  There were only seven candidates on stage this time – Michele Bachmann, Newt Gingrich, Jon Huntsman, Ron Paul, Rick Perry, Mitt Romney, and Rick Santorum.

I did live-tweet it (shameless plug - @TimABRussell).  Unlike my live-tweeting last night, I’ll try to sharpen the line between my observations and my opinions.  It’s hard to pick a clear winner or loser last night because most of the candidates took some serious damage (inflicted both by others and themselves) and/or failed to do anything stellar.  Also, it’s hard to define ‘winner’ and ‘loser’ in this context.  I try to do so at the end, but without further ado, here comes each candidate in 100 words or less.

Bachmann was in attack mode last night.  She absolutely hammered Gingrich on Fannie/Freddie and had a spirited exchange with Paul on Iran.  Bachmann was the clear winner in both exchanges in that she really hurt both counterparts on topics each needed to avoid.  She also got to tout her social conservatism and build herself out a bit, but not enough.  I still don’t see her as a viable winner for the primary or general election (maybe as a VP or cabinet member), but she helped her cause last night by doing so much damage to everyone else.

Gingrich got pounded on Fannie/Freddie by Bachmann.  Also, I think his proposed judicial changes really hurt him, as Paul and Romney did a great job of showing why they’re a bad idea.  Overall, I think Gingrich was a big loser on the night because he took a lot of serious damage and wasn’t able to play offense.  He wanted to focus on policy, but couldn’t, and when he could, he didn’t do that well.  He’s still in the hunt (and would be viable for VP or a cabinet seat), but he took damage on top of already dropping coming in.

Huntsman had, in my opinion, the overall strongest performance in terms of doing something stellar for oneself.  His advocacy for a bottom-up versus top-down approach to dealing with China and discussion of creating shared values reflected some great insight and new ideas.  He also discussed strengthening our core at home, term limits for Congress, and too big to fail.  His restoration of trust campaign theme is excellent.  I think he’s a long shot for winning the primary, but would make a great VP or cabinet member.  If he gets his name out there better, he has promise in the future.

Paul had a mixed night.  Because his foreign policy is so different from the GOP (and even most Democrats), he wanted to avoid being drawn into a foreign policy discussion.  He could not, and Bachmann hit him on it hard.  Paul did a great job countering Gingrich’s ideas on the judiciary and even pitched that he wouldn’t be a power-hungry president.  He has a small, vocal, and devoted following, yet Paul struggles to expand beyond it.  Maybe the Libertarian ticket is the place for him because I don’t see him winning here or getting the VP or cabinet positions.

Perry was largely irrelevant last night, in my opinion.  Aside from comparing himself to Tim Tebow and discussing throwing mechanisms, he really didn’t say that much of interest.  He talked about having Congress work less and some other issues.  When listing the seven candidates at the start of this post, I kept forgetting Perry (true story).  That’s how forgettable he was.  I don’t see how Perry could win the nomination and I question whether he’d even be a viable consideration for VP.  Perry just doesn’t have that presidential aura.

Romney’s biggest enemy wasn’t on stage.  Chris Wallace absolutely pounded Romney on flip-flopping or evolving views or political expediency or whatever you want to call it on abortion, gay rights, and gun control.  Wallace was brutal by moderator standards.  Outside of that, Romney had a solid performance and demonstrated some great economic leadership and competence.  He also hurt Gingrich on judicial issues.  I think last night was overall a net positive for Romney and he’s reestablished himself as the one to beat, partly due to Gingrich’s damage from last night and partly due to Romney’s mostly strong performance.

Santorum was pretty quiet last night.  Aside from his tiered approach to repatriation of overseas cash (5.5% normal, 0% if invested in America to create jobs), we really didn’t hear much from him.  He touted his record as a social and economic conservative, but failed to bring much new to the table.  He didn’t improve his (already slim) chances of victory last night and should consider seeking either the VP spot or cabinet positions.  Like Perry, Santorum lacks that presidential aura.

Overall, I’d say Huntsman had the strongest performance in terms of building oneself, Romney was best at holding ground, and Bachmann clearly did the most damage to other candidates, so I guess we can call them winners.  I think Gingrich was the biggest loser because of the damage he took and inability to effectively play offense.  Paul was a loser similar to Gingrich in both regards, but not as bad.  Perry and Santorum were really just kind of there and neither did anything big.  We’ll see soon how accurate my assessments are.