Tuesday, October 11, 2011

Occupying Dartmouth: On tonight's Republican debate

Several observations about tonight's Republican debate at Dartmouth University:

#1: Herman Cain won the debate--insofar as you can say anyone can be said to win these things. He came off as competent, informed, and articulate. And since the spotlight was on him because of his recent gain in momentum, all of that worked together to solidify him as a first-tier candidate. He is fast erasing doubts about his electoral viability. The fact that he could say that he had two candidates in mind to replace Bernanke when his term as Fed chair ends 2014 (under the implicit assumption that he might be president) and no one was even tempted to chuckle is a sign of where he is in this campaign. And did anyone notice the seating arrangement? Cain was seated in the center, as if he was the man of hour, which he is, given his recent rise in the polls. He looked like a leader. People were looking on him seriously for the first time and what they saw didn't seem implausible. There is a question that every debate answers. The chief question coming into this debate was whether Cain was a serious contender. His performance answered that question in the affirmative. He has at least put himself in the running for the VP spot, where a person of color or a woman is almost a certainty if the winner is a white male, and possibly taken another important step toward becoming the anti-Romney candidate.

#2: Romney came in second--He continues to be the man to beat in this campaign. As always, he comes off as being in command of the issues, particularly economic issues, and forceful in his presentation.

#3: Michelle Bachmann put in another excellent performance. She continues to impress by her almost flawless delivery of every answer to every question in these debates. She answers the questions smoothly and she answers them as an informed, intelligent political leader. It surprises me that, as much as she has exceeded expectations and put the lie to the media stereotype of some kind of crackpot, she doesn't seemed to have benefited in the polls. I don't think this most recent great performance will be enough to reestablish her as a top-tier candidate. Because of her gender, however, and her performance in the debates, she has established herself as a legitimate VP choice, given that the most important thing a VP does is to perform well in about two debates. She would make Biden look silly.

#4: Rick Perry again did not perform particularly well. He is surrounded in these debates by informed articulate people and, partly because he is a latecomer in this race, his reliance on generalities is starting to wear. He announced that he will be announcing an economic plan, but it may be too little, too late. 999 is beginning to seal the show. Perry needed a stellar performance tonight in order to erase the perception that his campaign is lagging. He didn't do that.

#5 Charlie Rose was the best of all the questioners in these debates--largely because he is a professional interviewer and he knows how to ask good, intelligent questions and keep things moving.

#6: Newt put in another superior performance, but his past superior performances have not put in into serious contention and tonight's will be no different in that regard.

#7: Huntsman continued to look good, but despite all the fawning of the liberal media (or perhaps because of it), he will remain the runt in the litter.

#8: Santorum had great things to say, but he has the gravitas of an over-enthusiastic puppy which is one of the reasons people don't see him as presidential.

#9: Ron Paul again had some good things to say. He will continue to be listened to in the debate and possibly do well in several primaries. But nothing particularly remarkable on the Paul front.

#10: This debate, even more so than the other Republican debates continue to impress by the level of discussion between the candidates. The Republicans who keep looking for the Great Right Hope (as in the Christie episode) need to get over it and take a look at what is a great field of candidates, all of whom would make a better president than Obama and who together have contributed to the most substantive and lively set of debates we have ever seen in presidential politics.

10 comments:

Lee said...

There's a struggle going on for the future of the Republican party, somewhat below the surface, and it's possible that that struggle is ultimately more important than the upcoming election.

Personally, I would hope that, going into this election, conservatives would indeed take a deep breath, and followed by a clear look at reality.

I think what they'd find would be as bracing as it is useful. Because, the beginning of wisdom, for a conservative, is the knowledge that the Republican establishment hates them with a white-hot passion.

And the truth shall set them free.

Singring said...

So Cain was the best in that debate? The best?

The guy who won't name the people who helped him work out his genius 9-9-9 plan and when forced to name one guy, the best he can come up with is 'Rich Lowry', who is not an economist, but an accountant (with a B.Sc.!!!) at a company that received 25 billion in TARP funds because it failed so miserably?

(http://www.linkedin.com/pub/rich-lowrie/a/74b/805)

Wow. How awful must the rest of them have been?

Martin Cothran said...

Singring,

This was an objective political analysis, not an evaluation. When I say that Cain won, I mean that in the political sense: who benefited the most politically.

But that is a distinction, and I know that you have problems with those.

Lee said...

> to name one guy, the best he can come up with is 'Rich Lowry', who is not an economist, but an accountant

There's a Rich Lowry who writes for National Review magazine. Used to be the editor-in-chief, maybe still is, I don't hang out very often at NR anymore. His economic credentials may not be any better.

But I should probably point out that the credentialed folks who designed the first "stimulus" package were wrong in their predictions in what it would do for the unemployment rate. Maybe a rank amateur is what we need here.

Singring said...

Martin:

'This was an objective political analysis, not an evaluation. When I say that Cain won, I mean that in the political sense: who benefited the most politically.'

I understand that perfectly well. But doesn't it worry you that the guy who 'performs best' and comes across as the most 'competent, informed, and articulate' is also the guy who gets his economic plan from a BSc accountant and who, to illustrate the dire straits the US are in, decides to quote the theme song of the cartoon movie Pokemon, attributing the words to 'a poet'?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93R8DryOXZc

And this is the guy who comes across as the most competent in that field of contenders? You of all people should be running up the walls with frustration that this is what the GOP has come to. It's a clown parade.

Lee said...

Send in the clowns. Doubt they could do much worse.

One Brow said...

If the 9 percent sales tax extend to financial instruments (stocks, derivatives, etc.), what do yo think that will do the market?

If is does not extend to financial instruments, but applies to food, it may be one of the most regressive taxes ever conceived. Do you really think you can tax the poor enough to make up for the deficit?

If is applies neither financial instruments nor food, there is no way the 9-9-9 plan can replace out current tax structure, or even come close.

Martin Cothran said...

Singring,

Can you tell me where in this post I said Cain was the "most competent"?

Singring said...

'Can you tell me where in this post I said Cain was the "most competent"?'

I never said you claimed he was the most competent. I said you claimed he came across as the most competent.

My statement was:

'But doesn't it worry you that the guy who 'performs best' and comes across as the most 'competent, informed, and articulate' is also the guy...'

The original quote from your post is:

'Herman Cain won the debate--insofar as you can say anyone can be said to win these things. He came off as competent, informed, and articulate.'

You made no comment on the competency of any other candidates, so I have to assume you considered Cain to come across as the most competent.

Are you now saying someone else in the dabate came across as more competent but didn't win the debate?

Who would that be? The woman who says there should be zero taxes, but then in the same breath says that 'obviously' Americans need to pay taxes?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_EG5tdrPsU

Is that fiscal competence on display?

Lee said...

> If the 9 percent sales tax extend to financial instruments (stocks, derivatives, etc.), what do yo think that will do the market?

Hear hear. I think it's time we considered the all of the deleterious effects that taxes in general have on lots of important things, including the market.

About the best thing that can be said about our current tax system is that it is the incumbent and we're used to its ill-effects.