DebateScoop.org: First Analysis of GOP California Debate

First Analysis of GOP California Debate

By Ross Smith 05/03/2007 09:54:53 PM EST

Everyone wants to know "who won" right away. OK, I'll indulge you a little bit below the fold, but remember, this was round one and the media coverage battle and spin battle is a part of this round that just started minutes ago.

Just click the "read more" and disagree or agree in the comments. Join me (plus special guests) at midnight EDT on , too

Tags: GOP, Republicans, debate, debates, presidential primary, 2008 elections

Winners (there is not just one):

Romney: good explanation of regional nature of Iraq conflict when saying we do not want to have to go back. Smooth, though handicapped by having to go first so often.

McCain: never got in trouble for being pro-surge. Early delivery problems outweighed by later willingness to take strong positions, whether popular with the "base" or not. He sounded like someone who really knew where he stood, a trait Reagan had.

Huckabee: of the lower tier candidates, he was the only one that sounded presidential and he did so by painting with broad strokes.

Standing still or slipping:
Rudy: New York, New York, Reagan, Reagan, Reagan, Crime, Crime, New York, terrorism, 9/11. Can you remember anything else, really? Yes you can: he is pro-choice. A gaffe on Iran/Contra awaits, too. Reagan was an arms for hostages guy!

Metthews: Good questions overall, did not go the $400 haircut route Brian Williams did. But he lost control of the time and let the candidates run over badly.

Losers:
The rest of the lower tier and the GOP itself.

By being so vehement on their purity as conservatives, social and otherwise, the lower tier candidates just sound like single-issue gadflies whether they are or not.
The GOP was not redefined, not close. Competing versions of the past were presented by the lower tier while McCain and Giuliani were pragmatists. Guess what: the Dems are pragamatists, too, but the polls show the people prefer their version.

CAVEAT: common wisdom determined by the drumbeat of spin and media may drown this out and then I will be "wrong." Or, I will do what a good judge does and reflect further, ultimately contradicting some of what is here.

< The Demand for Better GOP Questions | GOP Debate - Liveblog >

First Analysis of GOP California Debate | 13 comments (13 topical, 0 hidden)

Just after finishing this (none / 0)

Scarborough said he got lots of e-mal from conservatives saying Romney was good.

Romney's campaign may be well organized.
He got a lot of time in this debate to "explain" himself on the issues that trouble conservatives and label him a flip flopper, and he is smooth at doing so. He always sounds good.
He did not have to answer a single tough policy question.

Be the debater you want to see.

by Ross Smith on 05/03/2007 10:02:10 PM EST

Pragmatists and visions (none / 0)

An interesting comment on redefining the GOP and the pragmatism of the night. I basically agree, but I think the best chance for the GOP this time is to hearken back to the good ol' days. The Ronald Reagan nostalgia will give the primary partisans something to hope for and hang their hats on. If the myth of Reagan comes through, they can hope that everyone will remember that the cold war and the American hostages in the Middle East seemed like problems at least as intractable as Iraq is today. With double digit interest rates at home and hostages in Tehran, hopelessness was definitely more pronounced and bipartisan in 1980 than it is today. So the narrative behind the campaign for the GOP candidates just needs to be that the courage of one's convictions can overcome even the most hopeless and overwhelming situations. Those who tell you Iraq is a lost cause are the same ones who told us the Cold War was lost, and history (in this narrative) shows that courage and optimism work better than "cut and run" hopelessness and negativity.

If the GOP can construct that narrative (and this debate gave them a start), they may not need to redefine the party to win. The Democratic assault on Iraq can fall into the negativity and blame seeking that Reganesque stands squarely against.

Alan Coverstone, Debate Coach, Government Teacher, and Academic Dean Montgomery Bell Academy Nashville, TN

by Coverstone on 05/03/2007 10:13:50 PM EST

Respectfully, no (none / 0)

Reagan ran against Carter. The GOP now has Bush. This will be a change election. Something new is needed.
Narrative fidelity: does the narrative fit the worldview and prior understanding (story file) of the listener? You can drress it up, but you can't take it out.
Too much disunity in the GOP to sustain some party based narrative strategy. Really.

Be the debater you want to see.

by Ross Smith on 05/03/2007 10:32:36 PM EST

[ Parent ]

: Hope You're Right (none / 0)

I really do, but I remember the Voodoo that swept my hometown in Central Illinois when the Gipper's sunshine express came to town. Those people voted for him in droves because he made them feel like they could be winners again. Two years later, most of them lost their jobs to the Reagan recession, but they are still Republicans today.
This is definitely a change election, but both sides are running against Bush. For the democrats, he is a criminal, but for the Republicans, he is a failure because he let go of the Reagan mantle.
I agree this narrative is a tall order, and I think there are a number of factors that make it unlikely to succeed. One of them is the strategy Obama used to win over the people I am talking about in Central and Southern Illinois, but that strategy is also tough, and its reliance on communicating empathy to all people is fraught with the potential to be undone by the death of a thousand cuts. (See Obama's Rhetorical Challenge)
Both sides are offering change. If the GOP nominates McCain, they will link themselves too clearly to Bush via his strong support for the surge, but if they nominate one of the others who labeled Bush as a disappointment, this narrative will work with many.
I think whether we agree or not on the possibility here, the audience that would go for this narrative was clearly on the minds of many of tonight's candidates, not to mention the planners who put it at the Reagan library.
Alan Coverstone, Debate Coach, Government Teacher, and Academic Dean Montgomery Bell Academy Nashville, TN
by Coverstone on 05/03/2007 10:49:28 PM EST

[ Parent ]
: Too easy (none / 0)

Sir (we are speaking to a Republican), I knew Ronald Reagan, Ronald Reagan was a friend of mine, and you, sir, are no Ronald Reagan.
Be the debater you want to see.
by Ross Smith on 05/03/2007 11:00:34 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Fair Enough (none / 0)

Touché. I think that the narrative caries with it the spin (and the all too obvious evidence from this debate) that the party is mired in the past. It must be said that amidst all of the feints to the party faithful (abortion, gay rights, Terry Shiavo, let the market handle any questions that are too tough to answer, and other litmus tests...evolution?) I heard no clear message about the war or the way forward. That could be enough to doom anyone on the stage.

What about the people not on the stage? Perhaps the real winners to list are those now free to come forward with something resembling a plan without having to address the politically correct checklist that the 10 on stage tonight had to tick off. Fred Thompson anyone?

Alan Coverstone, Debate Coach, Government Teacher, and Academic Dean Montgomery Bell Academy Nashville, TN

by Coverstone on 05/03/2007 11:30:10 PM EST

Ron Paul (none / 0)

said that he would not support an amendment to the Constitution for Arnold because he supports the original meaning of the text of the constitution, which is hilariously confused.

Hope his libertarianism doesn't rely on the Bill of Rights.

by sg on 05/04/2007 12:04:25 AM EST

: good point (none / 0)

I, too was bemused when Paul said that. I think the original document has an "amendments ok" clause, Ron.
Be the debater you want to see.
by Ross Smith on 05/04/2007 01:27:09 AM EST

[ Parent ]

Feedback from a conservative (none / 0)

Here are my thoughts about tonight's Republican primary debate. First of all, I felt it lacked a great deal of substance because of its rapid-fire question and answer format. I did not like this debate style, and I agree with your point Ross that some of the questions seemed weak because of the forced brevity in the candidate's responses. I would like to also respond to some of the other points you made on your radio show, and overall, I agree with a great deal of your analysis. The Reagan analogies are continuously overused by Republican presidential candidates and needs to be cutdown. As Ann Coulter stated, "there is not going to be a Ronald Reagan in this election or anytime soon. Ronald Reagans come around once in a lifetime". Its seriously like every good basketball player comparing himself to Michael Jordan. These guys need to realize they are not Ronald Reagan and need to work on creating their own image and not living in someone else's.

I personally felt that McCain and Giulani looked very weak at times during the debate. Maybe I am a little biased here as I do not want either of these candidates to win the GOP primary, but John McCain seemed very self-contradicting. He did not come up with good responses in the questions about his prior issue flip-flopping, and I thought his comment about believing in evolution but also seeing God's influence on Earth required further explanation. Unfortunately, McCain was not given the opportunity to explain this and therefore came across as somewhat weak in his belief system. Giuliani struggled primarily because of the questions he asked. As a great deal of the debate focused on social issues, Giuliani could not relate to the conservative base and his attempts to do so were largely unsuccessful.

I thought the real winner of the debate, if there is one to a debate where no in-depth responses could be given, was Mitt Romney. Romney seemed passionate, confident, and optimistic in all his responses and came up with the best answer of the entire night. In response to Nancy Reagan's question about stem cell research, Romney offered the idea of "alternate nuclear transformations" as a way to approve of stem cell research without killing human embryos. This allowed him to appeal to both the proponents and opponents of the controversial embryonic stem cell research while at the same time appearing to be scientifically knowledgeable.

One correction I would like to make to your show is your explanation of Reagan's foreign policy with Iran. You attacked Giuliani for saying, "Reagan looked the hostages in his eye and they let them go". The Iranian hostage crisis did end minutes after Reagan was inaugurated without any financial bribes from the U.S. The Iran-Contra scandal, which you mentioned did not happen until years later, occurred because the United States did not want the Iraqis to win the Iran-Iraq war. Reagan was latter accused of supplying some of the weapons in exchange for the return of the Al-Dawa hostages in 1983, which were not the hostages mentioned by Giuliani who were returned immediately after Reagan took office.

by Brad Matthews on 05/04/2007 05:00:33 AM EST

: Thanks (none / 0)

For the comments and the help with history.
Even amended, Giuliani's characterization of Reagan's dealings with Iran were wrong. Here was Giulini's answer (from the NYT transcript):

And he has to look at an American president, and he has to see Ronald Reagan. Remember the -- they looked in Ronald Reagan's eyes, and two minutes they released the hostages.
The hostages were released as Reagan completed the negotiation process that Carter began (after the helicopter rescue mission failed). There is no evidence that Reagan struck fear into the Iranians.
"Look them in the eye" was no more an effective policy for Reagan than it was for Bush with Putin.
Finally, without further elaboration from Giuliani, the phrase "arms for hostages" still resonates in the memory of many. My main point was that Giuliani was haphazardly tossing in a caricature of Reagan.
Thanks again for your comment. I agree that other than Fred Thompson and Ronald Reagan, Romney was one of the winners and for the reasons you mention.
I think your best point is one that I would coach a candidate on: it is impossible to be Reagan and the GOP needs to quit trying. Nostalgia just makes the party look old and tired. I was waiting for one candidate to simply saysomthing along these lines: "Face it, there was only one Ronald Reagan. He was the man for his times and made history. I would never pretend to rise to duplicate him, but what I would do to lead in the twenty first century is . . . ."
Be the debater you want to see.
by Ross Smith on 05/04/2007 09:25:51 AM EST

[ Parent ]

evolution and tablets (none / 0)

It seems to me that rather than being a "change" election, this one will be a maturing of the midterm "get the center" election. If that is correct, then the Republicans' most important moves will be:

1) focussing on centrist priorities - lower taxes, economic vitality, and a strong and secure America
2) repudiating Bush's far-right missteps
3) casting the Democrats as Rosie Harry Pelosies

If the Republicans are able to substantially accomplish those 3 things, they have good chances, I think.

Giuliani and McCain debated just right, it seems to me. Frontrunners on a stage with 8 others means don't hurt yourself, play nice, and make sure everyone understands that you are a centrist and they are weird.

I wanted to write about religion, though.

Huckabee, Tancredo, and Brownback were the 3 that raised their hands when asked "Is there anyone on the stage that doesn't believe in evolution?" As far as I am concerned, those 3 might as well have said "I believe that an invisible gremlin named Zoey is sitting on Chris Matthews' shoulder pointing at me right now." Their response entails a catastrophic epistemic failure which guarantees they would be incapable of evaluating complex and incomplete intelligence assessments, making nuanced decisions about problematic economic policies, or even reciting the alphabet without error. Nothing says "I am a hopeless religious-right hack" more effectively than what they did. And the next President won't be a Republican if voters think they will get more of W's religious-right nonsense.

And that leaves Mitt Romney. Mormon. The angel Moroni giving Joseph Smith two golden plates written in an Egyptian language, a silver bow, and a breastplate... The story of the the Nephites and Lammanites, translation using magical Urim and Thummim, and God's plan revealed in the Book of Mormon... Joseph Smith and Brigham Young as prophets who receive public policy revelations from God for things like polygamy, Utah statehood, and preventing women and blacks from becoming ministers... If Mitt believes those things actually happened, that reality is like that, then he shouldn't be President. If. It isn't that other religions' beliefs are ultimately any saner, but the recency and the modern context in which this narrative occurs makes the silliness clear.

Now, Romney's religious beliefs weren't on stage yesterday, but that doesn't really help him that much because they will be. He didn't raise his hand when the evolution question was asked and that is good. But "Battlefield Earth" as his favorite fiction book and doing a little dance about "faith" every time he is asked about his religious beliefs are not good. And, well, Mitt won't be able to avoid the question of just far out his beliefs are indefinitely.

So I respectfully disagree that Romney was one of the "winners" last night: unlike McCain and Giuliani, who just needed to be there, Romney has a huge golden eleph ant standing behind him that millions of us are looking at and he can't just keep hoping that we ignore it...

by michael on 05/04/2007 11:36:02 AM EST

: good points (none / 0)

With regard to Mormonism, what better could Romney have pssibly done about that in last night's debate? His problem on that question seems to be one that is unrelated to his debate answers.
With regard to the "center" the question is, where is the center? The "centrist" priorities you list are not those that polls tell us Americans have. Iraq, Health Care, Immigration, terrorism, energy are the top five in that order.
60% favor the "Rosie Harry Pelosies" position on Iraq. 80& are for universal health care. 60% for what Tancredo calls "amnesty" for immigrants.
Be the debater you want to see.
by Ross Smith on 05/04/2007 01:26:53 PM EST

[ Parent ]
: Huckabee's Early Withdrawal (none / 0)

Interesting that Huckabee, who could have brought to the table a legacy of executive competence coupled with a compelling personal story of health and fitness, chose to disqualify himself this early in the running. I think declaring a disbelief in evolution not only is but ought to be a disqualifier from the vox populi. Sure, 90% of Americans might believe in God, but I'd be shocked to learn that only a plurality of Americans -- even a plurality of Republicans -- explicitly do not believe in evolution. Hard to call him a winner. Smart Democrats would find a way to sink Huckabee quickly if he were to reach Big 3 status in the event of an implosion on the part of any of McCain, Giuliani, or Romney. I think the big winners here are Gingrich and Thompson, who get a pass on this difficult question for those seeking the support of the "true conservatives" of the religious right and might get to leapfrog whatever early support Huckabee has.
by tfo on 05/13/2007 11:24:57 AM EST

[ Parent ]