The nine Republican candidates for president debated for the 923rd time in 2007 Tuesday night, discussing economic issues in Michigan. Notably, this debate featured former Sen. Fred Thompson, R-Law and Order, who made his much-anticipated debut after months of general campaign bumbling, stumbling and hesitation. With Mr. Thompson's entry into the race, now seems as good a time as any to size up the GOP field, and Tuesday's debate provides a suitable lens through which to make the assessment. So, here are the winners, losers and "mehs" from Tuesday night.
Winners:
Rudy Giuliani: We're getting to a point in the campaign where you can easily discern a party's frontrunner by paying attention to how many times he or she mentions the other party's frontrunner(s) in a debate. Face it, if Duncan Hunter started every answer with "Hillary Clinton this and Hillary Clinton that," it'd seem a little presumptuous. Rudy knows he's the frontrunner, though, so he's free to lace his debate responses with allusions to a Hillary-led America. And that he did.
As could be predicted, the most interesting points in the debate featured discussion between Mr. Giuliani and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. In addition to taxes and spending, the two quarreled over the use of a presidential line-item veto as a way to control spending. Mr. Romney said he would support it at the federal level. Mr. Giuliani retorted that it was found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1998. It seems a little unclear what Mr. Giuliani's stance on the line-item veto is on the merits — he claims to like it, though he led the effort to invalidate it in the ’90s — but at least he acknowledges that it would probably take a constitutional amendment to bring it back at the federal level.
Mitt Romney: It seems almost inconceivable that Mr. Romney won't finish in the top two, when all is said and done in the nomination process.
Losers:
Social security reform: In a debate centering on economic issues, social security sure didn't get much play. Everyone spoke about it in passing, but nobody seemed willing to devote any considerable time to the subject. That's a pretty good indication of where the topic ranks in this election. President Bush made a fairly big deal about reform in the 2004 election, but his efforts to act on it fell apart rapidly in 2005. The Democrats have a "stay the course" stance on Social Security, and while Republicans generally support some level of privatization, it's not a political priority. There's always 2012, I guess.
Jim Gilmore: The former Virginia governor dropped out of the presidential race some time ago and was nowhere to be found at Tuesday's debate. Frankly, he deserved to lose due to his failure to respond to the "Obama Girl" phenomenon with his own "Gilmore Girl." Simply inexcusable. Just thought I'd mention that, and also point out there's more advice like it for any campaign willing to hire me for a lucrative salary.
Mehs:
Ron Paul: Has anybody considered the possibility that Ron Paul is actually a lackey employed by the Giuliani campaign to set the former New York mayor up for good sound bites? Mr. Paul claimed Tuesday that the United States had never been imminently attacked by another country. In an earlier debate, he claimed Sept. 11 resulted from U.S. foreign policy. Both are patently wrong and provided perfect opportunities for Mr. Giuliani to get in good quotes.
If Mr. Paul is his own candidate, I'm conflicted. I want to like him. I should like him. There can't be any doubt that he's completely sincere in everything he says. But he spent an entire debate supposedly about economic matters talking about foreign policy. They're related, to be sure, but one must wonder if Mr. Paul has realized his libertarian economic message doesn't attract much attention, sadly, while his strident anti-war views do.
Fred Thompson: Fred Thompson making his debut at a debate focused on economic matters is kind of like Rafael Nadal facing Roger Federer on a grass court. Mr. Thompson can compete with these guys, but it's not a venue that affords him the best chance to succeed. If the former senator is going to make a serious run at the GOP nomination, it's going to be as a Reagan-esque cultural candidate, winning support of social conservatives. Those issues weren't at play Tuesday. Let's face it, the national security mantle clearly is Mr. Giuliani's to keep. Mr. Romney doesn't specialize in any particular issue area, but he's well-organized and campaigns well. What the Republican field lacks is a strong pro-life candidate, or at least a pro-life candidate who's also a television star. That's Mr. Thompson's M.O.
As for his performance Tuesday, Mr. Thompson appeared a little uncomfortable and stuck to broad policy explanations. Being positioned on stage between Mr. Giuliani and Mr. Romney probably didn't help, especially when the two were quarrelling with each other over who's better at holding the line on taxes and spending. The polls say Mr. Thompson belongs with those two candidates, but he'll need to make marked improvements in his debate performance and campaigning to stick with them.
Mike Huckabee: Another respectable performance from Mr. Huckabee, "hick" name and all. His campaign still has a chance, unlike those of Messrs. Brownback, Hunter and Tancredo, but time is of the essence if the ex-Arkansas governor is to make a serious move.
Ryan Masse ([email protected]) is a first-year law student.
