After watching the Republican Presidential Debate last night on CNN, and then going through all the post-debate analysis and commentary, I will begin by saying that I think Michele Bachmann “won” the debate. My use of quotation marks with the word “won” is intentional – I believe it is far too early to declare a winner in the Republican field of candidates. However, as far as the person who made the best impression to the Republican and conservative electorate, the Congresswoman won – hands down.
The first thing I noticed – and remember I am a liberal - was the intensity of the anti-Obama rhetoric. Yes, I know, it’s the REPUBLICAN debate. These folks want President Obama’s job. However, I felt that more time was spent bashing the President’s policies than describing what they would do differently, and when pressed for specifics, each candidate used broad generalizations to describe what they wanted to do.
Towards the beginning of the debate, there was a lot of attention focused on President Obama’s heath care plan. Bachmann blasted “Obama-Care” and continued to gripe about the $500 Billion in Medicare cuts that would go into effect in 2014. I found that to be amusing since she voted for the Paul Ryan Budget, which essentially does away with Medicare entirely, replacing it with a “voucher” program. However, most conservatives feel that it’s the general tenor of the Health Care plan they object to – being another example of government overreach. I felt that Bachmann and Gov. Mitt Romney were most successful at tapping into that sentiment with their comments.
On the Ryan Budget, I was very surprised about Newt Gingrich’s explanation of the comments that got him in hot water last month. He first said he wouldn’t support the Ryan plan, comparing it to Conservative Ideological overreaching. He clarified – saying while he supports aspects of the Ryan Plan, most Americans do not. He compared it to Obama-Care – the President forcing a policy down the throats of Americans even though most didn’t support it. He suggested that the Republicans either slow down, or do a better job selling their plan to the people.
On the heath care front, I also felt that Gov. Tim Pawlenty missed an opportunity to differentiate himself from Mitt Romney. Political pundits have been saying for months – Pawlenty is the “not Romney” option – being another bright, energetic Governor from a “Blue” state who has conservative values. On Sunday, Pawlenty blasted Romney over his heath care plan for Massachusetts, which the President modeled his own health care plan after. He referred to it as “Obomny-Care.” He appeared to back off of that statement, seeming to go out of his way not to attack Romney over the issue. I think that was a mistake – considering that Romney’s Massachusetts plan is one of his biggest liabilities. Pawlenty had the most to gain from undermining Romney’s leadership ability on that issue, and he failed to do so. Surprisingly, no one attacked Romney on anything!
One of the audience members, identifying himself as a “plain old Republican,” expressed his concerns about the Tea Party and social conservatives pushing out moderates from the conversation. I was impressed by Bachmann’s response. She said that the party needed 3 pillars of support – from the fiscal conservatives to the social conservatives to the peace by strength conservatives. She explained the need for all three branches of the party to come together – respecting everyone’s views – as a path to victory in 2012. Her explanation was specific, to the point, and appeared to ease the concerns of the man who asked the question. She pointed out that, in the end, it would be economic policy that will determine the outcome in 2012, not social issues.
When the debate turned to finance – I had to constrain myself! All of the candidates continued to drum the beat of Tax Cuts in order to solve almost all fiscal problems. Former Senator Rick Santorum suggested a 5 year corporate tax holiday (no companies would have to pay corporate income taxes at all for 5 years) in order to grow the economy. Congressman Ron Paul took it a step further, saying he would like to completely end all monetary policy in the U.S. as well as end all government subsidies for private industry. In this instance, I felt that Governor Pawlenty shone brightest. He adequately explained his new tax plan (making a 3 tiered tax plan capped at 25% for income taxes and a flat 15% rate for corporate taxes and eliminating almost every deduction and incentive) and gave some examples of government functions that were unnecessary and he felt could be eliminated.
I was surprised that Romney largely agreed with Pawlenty’s plan, and didn’t offer any specifics of his own vision for financial policy.
A large amount of time was spent trashing the bailouts of Wall Street and the automotive industry. Herman Cain, the former CEO of Godfather’s Pizza, pledged he would never support a government intervention to bailout any private business or industry – specifically citing his belief that nothing is “too big to fail.” Mitt Romney had a tough time fully explaining his comments regarding letting the auto industry collapse. He tried to say he supported a regular bankruptcy process for the industry, and pointed out that is what eventually happened – though he refused to acknowledge the leverage the U.S. gave to the industry during bankruptcy, instead saying the President Obama bailed out the auto industry by giving it to the Unions.
That led into a 15 minute union-bashing segment which I can’t really explain. I understand the Republican Party’s general disdain for organized labor – but some of the vitriol that came out of the various candidates’ mouths was a bit much. I personally feel that some unions do overreach with their demands of employers, but the extent that the candidates demonized all unions in general – well – I disagreed strongly.
There was an interesting portion of the debate about NASA and U.S. space policy. All of the candidates agreed that the government should have a roll in space exploration, but agreed that the private sector should have fewer regulations in order to accomplish our goals.
Herman Cain spent a lot of time talking about entitlement reform, specifically in regards to Social Security. He supports privatizing the system, but he did not say if he supported raising the retirement age.
All of the candidates had similar views on the social issues of the day. They are all pro life, would keep the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy, and support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.
Something that surprised me was the lack of any coherent Foreign Policy specifics going forward. They all universally agreed that President Obama didn’t have a focused foreign policy, but no one had anything specific on how they’d change what was being done now. Bachmann did offer a few specifics in regards to the situation in Libya, but that was about it.
Overall, I believe Michele Bachmann performed best overall. Mitt Romney didn’t offer anything new to the discussion, but may have helped mitigate some of the questions around his health care policy. Herman Cain didn’t do as well as he did in the last debate – he didn’t offer many specifics, other than his entitlement reforms. Rick Santorum and Ron Paul will not be the nominee, and neither offered anything new to the debate. Neither did Newt Gingrich, though he may have quelled some of the nervousness over his position on the Ryan Budget. The loser, in my view, was Tim Pawlenty. He missed a golden opportunity to undercut Romney’s positions and he opted not to. It seems he may not have the political chops to take Romney on.
I disagreed with about 75% of what the candidates said. However, my biggest take from this debate: The substance is there. Those who say this is a weak field of candidates better take a closer look.
No comments:
Post a Comment