December 13, 2007
12/13: The Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Debate
Conservative bloggers were disappointed by yesterday's Des Moines Register GOP debate, which they called "appalling," "awful," a "snore-fest," and "the worst debate yet." Most of the complaints centered around the moderator's perceived liberal bias, her decision to not ask questions about Iraq or immigration, the restrictive format (which prevented the candidates from engaging each other), and the unwelcome presence of Alan Keyes.
The consensus in the blogosphere is that Fred Thompson and Mitt Romney had very good nights, Mike Huckabee survived, and Rudy Giuliani and John McCain were hurt by the absence of Iraq-related questions. But while most conservative bloggers (as well as Frank Luntz' focus group) were impressed by Romney's performance, did he do well enough to stop Huckabee's momentum in Iowa? Several conservative bloggers suspect that Huckabee, simply by avoiding any damaging attacks, may prove to be the real winner of yesterday's debate. As Soren Dayton writes:
"Huckabee dodged a bullet. It could have been a great opportunity for everybody to whack at him. It was probably the last opportunity for people to do that. And it didn't happen."
GOP DEBATE: A Disaster Of Epic Proportions
NRO's Jim Geraghty: "Saying I hated this debate is like saying George Soros can spare some change. The retired brigadier general who was on Hillary's gay and lesbian steering committee was bad. This one was...egregious. Appalling. Extraordinarily frustrating. Alternately an uncontrolled circus and a banal snore-fest...This was a disastrous format, with insane time limits on candidates, all mismanaged by a brusque, snippy moderator who seemed to think Iowans did not want the candidates to finish their sentences."
Townhall's Matt Lewis: "That debate was horrible. That lady actually made me miss Anderson Cooper."
Human Events' Jennifer Rubin: "[This was the] Republicans' worst debate yet...[The moderator's] attempt to limit responses (in the tone of an annoyed school marm) to 30 or 60 seconds, her march down the row of speakers without encouraging any interaction...[and] her demand that each contender recite a New Year's resolution (for his opponents no less), reduced the entire affair to the level of farce."
AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein: "This was by far the worst debate yet. The questions were not only skewed to the left, not only almost entirely neglected foreign policy, but they were so broad as to allow the candidates to fall back on talking points. Also, there was no room for back and forth between the candidates. Absolutely awful."
Captain's Quarters' Ed Morrissey: "We got a series of campaign slogans, not a debate."
Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "Allowing Alan Keyes to smash the china, while refusing to ask about headlines like waterboarding, the CIA tapes, the NIE and of course Huckabee's insinuation about the LDS Church was comically unprofessional."
Conservative bloggers also didn't understand why debate moderator (Des Moines Register editor Carolyn Washburn) refused to ask questions about Iraq and immigration:
The Weekly Standard's Dean Barnett: "From the outset, Washburn announced that the candidates would not be discussing either Iraq or immigration. Swell! It's the biggest debate of the season, so let's take the two biggest issues off the table."
Jennifer Rubin: "We knew we were in for a rough afternoon when [the moderator] declared up front that she wasn't going to bother much with Iraq and immigration. No reason to discuss two of the issues conservatives care most about and one of which is the source of intense conflict between the candidates, right?"
Geraghty: "The debate organizers decided no questions on Iraq (what the hell?!?)...just because the media isn't as interested in hearing about Iraq now that the casualties are down, doesn't mean the issue doesn't matter. Thompson got one question on the NIE, why not everybody?"
GOP DEBATE II: The Greening Of The GOP?
Michelle Malkin is upset by the GOP candidates' apparent receptiveness to the idea that humans cause global warming: "Fred Thompson earned his gold medal for refusing to follow Schoolmarm's order for a show of hands on an inane global warming question...the rest of the leading GOP candidates' responses to Schoolmarm's global warming query demonstrate a rather disturbing greening of the party. And not just mild green. But bright, neon, Gore green. Total enviro-nitwit-ization. Can these guys really belong to the same party as stalwart, anti-fearmonger Sen. Jim Inhofe?...No effort to challenge the fundamental premise of the question. Just Gore-approved soundbites and cheery 'have our eco-cake and eat it, too' platitudes. No full-throttled attack on radical eco-fear-mongering and the manipulation of environmental science for political gain. Not even a mild-mannered 'Well, the science isn't settled and there is by no means a consensus'...Bad enough we have border control cross-dressers leading the GOP presidential pack. Must the Republican nominee also be a Gore-in-GOP clothing, too?"
Power Line's Scott Thomas: "And to think this was the Republican field seeking to appeal to Republican voters before accommodating their positions to the general electorate. Ouch!"
Philip Klein: "Answering that believing global warming is a man-made phenomenon cannot help either [McCain or Giuliani]."
THOMPSON: Right Said Fred
Dean Barnett: "The winner was Fred Thompson. Fred came to play. He also had the obvious moment of the day when he took on the officious moderator, refusing to go along with one of those idiotic 'raise your hands' questions...He was serious, thoughtful, and authoritative. It was a wonderful day for him."
Jim Geraghty: "Winner: Thompson. Don't know if it will be enough, but he ought to get at least a little bump out of this. The moment he basically told the moderator where she could stick her 'show of hands' question -- well, I was inspired."
RedState's Erick Erickson: "Had the Fred on stage today been around these last few months, he'd be winning. I really do think he won this debate."
NRO's Mark Hemingway: "Seriously, it's like Thompson came to the debate in Des Moines today to do two things: Kick butt and chew gum. And it appears he's all out of gum."
Philip Klein: "Fred Thompson was the only candidate who stood out. He was funny, charming, and peppy. Here was a guy who wasn't afraid to speak hard truths, and who displayed knowledge of the policy issues -- especially on entitlements. But the moment of the debate, the moment that will be talked about should he defy expectations and go on to win the nomination, was when he refused to raise his hand at the behest of the moderator. This demonstrated conviction, showed he was able to stand up for his principles, that he was a man who valued substance, a leader rather than a follower, and somebody who is running a different kind of campaign. In short, today Thompson was everything that conservatives had hoped they'd be getting when he announced his candidacy."
ROMNEY: Nice Job, Governor
Ed Morrissey: "It's clear that Mitt Romney won this debate. Huckabee didn't hurt himself, but Romney had eloquence, poise, and serious content in his performance. He looked presidential and sounded even more so. He also seemed spontaneous and good-humored, mixing it up with Fred Thompson and keeping it light. He never really went after Huckabee, choosing more to focus on his own record."
NRO's Kathryn Jean Lopez: "Mitt won -- sounded presidential, competent, made a case for himself, and was optimistic, but realistic, about the threats we face. He's hit his stride."
NRO's Rich Lowry: "A strong performance. The risk for him was seeming small in fights with Huckabee. The format saved him from that. The emphasis on the economy, education and other domestic, non-hot button issues benefited him. He seemed in control, substantive and positive. If there was a winner, it was Romney."
Jennifer Rubin: "Romney had arguably his best debate so far, appearing confident and well versed particularly on education, but without an opening to confront Huckabee it was a largely missed opportunity."
Dean Barnett: "Romney continued his fine run. Actually, the overly dry format played to his advantage. His wonkiness shines through on virtually every issue, and because there was no interplay, this debate was all about the wonkiness."
Hugh Hewitt: "It was the collective reaction of the Frank Luntz focus group on the Fox News Channel that was most riveting. Watch it for yourself. Romney swept nearly the entire room. If that group reflects the GOP primary electorate, Romney helped himself immensely today."
Meanwhile, conservative theologian Michael Novak has endorsed Romney: "I have been supporting [Romney] privately for weeks, though I was trying to avoid supporting anybody publicly. But the attacks upon Romney's religion have been a last straw...Romney is a good, executive-keen man, and without this mud he would earn the respect and love of the American people on his own."
HUCKABEE: Treading Water
Jennifer Rubin: "In the Mitt Romney vs. Mike Huckabee contest, which is of course where the Iowa action is, there was very little excitement and virtually no conflict. Given the moderator's refusal to focus on a prime source of dispute (immigration) the two were left to make short, canned speeches without addressing one another. Given Huckabee's frontrunner status currently in Iowa this worked to his advantage. Certainly he did nothing to damage his prospects. His appeals on education and on healthcare and his plea for the 'ordinary guy' stuck closely to his populist themes."
Jim Geraghty: "Treaded Water, No Gain, No Loss: Huckabee. The time limits got in the way of his usual rhetorical smoothness...But he's a good debater, and rarely if ever turns in a bad performance. But maybe I kept waiting for him to point to Romney and shout, 'Hey, look, it's one of those MORMONS!'"
Erick Erickson: "Huckabee is Alan Keyes without being a whacked out egomaniacal nutter. He did well, as usual."
Rich Lowry: "Could this be the moment when people begin to focus seriously on this race and his folksy vacuity on a lot of answers just doesn't cut it? I don't know the answer to that, but he seemed at his weakest in the harsh glare of a relentlessly substantive and sober debate. I believe he would have been better off fending off attacks from rivals with snappy comebacks. Not today."
Meanwhile, NRO's Andrew Stuttaford sums up much of the conservative blogosphere's attitude toward Huckabee as of late: "Ugh. The idea that Gov. Huckabee could conceivably be the GOP's presidential nominee is simply appalling, and so, while I'm on the topic, is the notion (that I've seen floated around here and there) that he could be a vice-presidential pick. Just say no."
MCCAIN: What'dya Mean, No Questions About Iraq?!?
Townhall's Mary Katharine Ham: "Is it just me or has McCain failed to shine tonight? He's usually very good in debates, and it would have been helpful to him in N.H. to do well tonight, but the moderator nixed Iraq as a topic, which held him back considerably."
Erick Erickson: "McCain looked tired, but continued to be adult. How refreshing it was to hear him willing to talk down ethanol subsidies, etc. Maybe he is the guy we're going to need to unite behind if Fred can't pull it out."
Rich Lowry: "Rudy/McCain: Nothing wrong with their performances. But just didn't seem big factors and were hurt by the emphasis on domestic issues."
GIULIANI: Not In His Element
Jennifer Rubin: "For Rudy Giuliani it was a solid outing as he delivered his message of fiscal conservatism and leadership and calmly responded to the moderator's huffy inquiries about New York City accounting practices...However, since foreign policy was entirely ignored neither he nor John McCain had much opportunity to shine."
AmSpec Blog's James Antle: "Giuliani was just okay."
KEYES: He Has Them Right Where He Wants Them
James Antle: "Alan Keyes did what he needed to do today. He protected his place as the sole candidate in the tier above John Cox and Hugh Cort but below Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter."
DEM FIELD: It's Anyone's Game
Open Left's Chris Bowers offers his thoughts on the Dem race: "Not only Iowa, but also New Hampshire and South Carolina, are very close now. If [Hillary] Clinton wins Iowa, it is hard to see how she doesn't sweep the other states, too. It is interesting that [Barack] Obama seems to be making up ground in both New Hampshire and South Carolina, but has recently become stagnant in Iowa. The three-way Iowa campaign might be the main reason for that, or it could be that Obama's potential upward momentum stops once he enters into a tie with Clinton. If Obama wins Iowa, it looks like he is in a position to sweep, too. Then again, since bounces don't last forever, even in the event of an Iowa and New Hampshire sweep by Obama, the eleven and eighteen-day periods before Nevada and South Carolina respectively might allow Clinton time to recover in those states. Florida also seems like a possible state where Clinton can recover if she slips in other early states, given her enormous lead there...If [John] Edwards wins Iowa it is anyone's guess what happens in New Hampshire and afterward (especially with a 1-2-3 Edwards-Obama-Clinton finish in Iowa)."
MyDD's Jerome Armstrong thinks we're in for a long primary battle: "The early contests looks good for Obama. Sure, there's a slim chance that Edwards could be the benefactor of Clinton & Obama duking it out, but it hasn't turned out that way to date. Obama could take 3 out of the first 4 DNC-sanctioned states, or even a sweep. I don't think though that would clinch it for him, he'd need to win MI (impossible) and FL (not likely) to not leave an opening for Clinton to re-emerge. Argue all you want that those contests don't have delegates, the Clinton campaign will have a legitimate argument that they've got those delegates. So it goes onto Feb 5th...No one, the media especially, is going to want this to be over quickly. In 2004, it was a contest of who was going to beat Bush, and the quicker we got to Bush being the focus the better, was the opinion of most voters...That dynamic isn't at play this time, especially given that the Republican contest is so tangled. It's going to be a long hard-fought contest."
Meanwhile, MyDD's Todd Beeton sets the expectations for today's debate: "Throughout this campaign, debates have proven seismic for [HRC] to the extent that her lead was essentially earned and lost based on her performance during them and so [today] is a perfect opportunity for her to try to shift things yet again, to re-establish voters' confidence, which has been shaken over the last month or so. To accomplish this, she needs to shine and she needs Obama to stumble, and if he doesn't, then she needs to trip him up. This is risky, of course, not only because she could potentially alienate Iowa voters who tend to detest attacks, but also because her campaign has been so inept at the whole attacking thing recently. This is an especially strange development for a campaign that a. has exhibited such message discipline for so much of the year and b. has basically pitched Clinton as an effective political fighter...Obama on the other hand will likely act the part of the front-runner and avoid saying or doing anything controversial; the wild card is Edwards. On one hand, he's been playing Mr. nice guy recently...But if he sees an opening, I could see him piling on Obama; he has a lot to gain from an Obama fall as traditionally Obama's supporters cite Edwards as their second choice and vice versa. But taking down Obama is going to be difficult as the upward momentum is clearly his."
DEM FIELD II: The Lack Of Enthusiasm Is Palpable!
Edwards and Obama both increased their support in the latest Daily Kos straw poll, garnering 39% and 30%, respectively. They were followed by Dennis Kucinich and HRC at 8% each.
Markos Moulitsas: "I voted 'Obama' this time, not necessarily because I support him, but because the alternatives are no good. Hillary? Yeah right. Edwards? If he hadn't taken public financing, I'd probably go for him (and who doesn't have a crush on Elizabeth [Edwards]?). But I refuse to vote for a guy who will be broke for about seven months in 2008 while the other side beats the crap out of him...That doesn't mean I think Obama walks on water. Far from it. The guy is going around idiotically attacking Paul Krugman, dancing with homophobic preachers, and while his rhetoric is beautiful upon first listening, an hour later you're left wondering if he said anything of substance at all (and the answer is usually 'no'). But this became 'process of elimination' for me. I don't 'support' Obama, I just plan on voting for him. And at the end, I'll just be excited to bid adieu to the primary wars and get enthusiastically behind whoever wins, wether it's Obama, Edwards, or Clinton."
Open Left's Chris Bowers, on the other hand, favors Edwards: "Even though I am clearly obsessed with Barack Obama, since I write five times as much about him as I write about any other Democratic candidate, I was already leaning toward Edwards anyway. It has been an extremely difficult decision making process, but I want to have someone in the top tier to cheer for the night of the Iowa caucuses. If Clinton will attack Obama for being too liberal, and Obama will run away from the charge rather than meeting it head-on, then yeah, I'll cheer for Edwards."
In a later post, Bowers elaborates on his choice: "No one has really thrilled me, and so deciding who to vote for becoming an intellectual argument based on process of elimination. I wanted Clinton to show me more progressive policies, and generally speaking that just didn't happen. I wanted Obama to stop rhetorically distancing himself from the left, and instead he seems to be distancing himself from the left even more so these days. I wanted Edwards to excite me, but I have to admit that never really happened...And so, it became an intellectual argument, where through a combination of policy positions and willingness to be identified with the left, I currently side with Edwards. I understand the electability arguments around Edwards and public financing, but they don't really resonate with me anymore."
Bowers also explains why he couldn't bring himself to support Obama: "In my gut I always wanted to support Barack Obama...he interests me more than the other candidates, and I was always looking for an intellectual argument that worked for me enough to support him in the primaries. It just didn't happen, however. Over the past four years, I have consistently worked to try and build progressive power, and to stop Democratic tendency to distance itself from the left. As such, in a contested primary where other candidates are either equal or superior on policy, I'm not going to work for the candidate who does more to distance himself from the left than all the other candidates in the field. That conflicts with my sense of pride, my political goals and with simple intellectual consistency. In short, it is a predominantly emotional response that cancels out my predominantly emotional, gut-level excitement for Obama."
CLINTON: Off Come The Gloves
The Huffington Post's Thomas Edsall reported on 12/11 that HRC's allies are "quietly rais[ing] Obama's cocaine use." On 12/12, HRC's New Hampshire co-chair Billy Shaheen (who is the husband of ex-Gov. Jeanne Shaheen) explicitly mentioned Obama's drug use in an interview yesterday with The Washington Post. The Post reports :
"'The Republicans are not going to give up without a fight ... and one of the things they're certainly going to jump on is his drug use,' said Shaheen [...]
Billy Shaheen contrasted Obama's openness about his past drug use -- which Obama mentioned again at a recent campaign appearance in New Hampshire -- with the approach taken by George W. Bush in 1999 and 2000, when he ruled out questions about his behavior when he was 'young and irresponsible.'
Shaheen said Obama's candor on the subject would 'open the door' to further questions. 'It'll be, "When was the last time? Did you ever give drugs to anyone? Did you sell them to anyone?"' Shaheen said. 'There are so many openings for Republican dirty tricks. It's hard to overcome.'"
The Obama campaign immediately denounced Shaheen's remarks, and the HRC campaign denied having "authorized or condoned" the comments.
TPM's Greg Sargent is surprised by the remarks: "A top Hillary campaign official attacked Obama for candor and contrasted that unfavorably with Bush's handling of such questions? Seems like an unorthodox approach in a Dem primary."
Firedoglake's Jame Hamsher: "Hillary Clinton's New Hampshire co-chair Bill Shaheen basically calls Obama a drug dealer. Of course, Clinton knew nothing about it (*cough*)."
Jerome Armstrong is not sure that the attack will work: "Obama just pulled ahead with a poll in New Hampshire, and that coupled with this wide open attack by Clinton campaign officials, suggests that they believe it's got enough of a stick to it that after it's run its news cycle, the negative residue would be a net negative for Obama; but it's just as plausible, given the coupling of the attack with the sinking poll numbers, that Clinton getting hammered stagnates her numbers, or even causes them to dip further."
Obama's online defenders were up in arms over Shaheen's comments:
Daily Kos' BarbinMD: "Apparently when a campaign is losing ground every day to their opponent, some think that trotting out a Republican line of attack will stop the bleeding...It's hard to say which is the most offensive part about this 'concern' from Shaheen. Perhaps that he ignores that it was Obama himself who opened the door when he wrote his autobiography, and that he has used that chapter in his life to convince young people that drugs are a waste of time...Or perhaps it's that Shaheen talks about Republican dirty tricks as he himself is engaging in them. Or maybe it's the implication that Obama should follow George Bush's lead and be secretive and dishonest. Does a Clinton co-chair really want to stay that course?"
BarbinMD was not satisfied by the HRC campaign's denial that it had "authorized or condoned" the remarks: "So, the comments were not authorized or condoned, but then again, they weren't condemned, were they? And will Billy Shaheen, who is no political innocent, pay any price for his comments? Or was this a directed hit from a floundering campaign?"
Daily Kos diarist Geekesque: "If any couple in the history of American politics is morally and logically disqualified from throwing mud based on indiscretions in the past, it is Bill and Hillary Clinton...Only in Clintonland is honesty a fault. They prefer the Bush approach to the Obama approach. Laughter is the only appropriate response to the Clintons' claims Hillary is running as an agent of change. Same old garbage, same old garbage cans. And spare me the 'the Republicans might use it' crap. No one is buying that. This is what bad, dishonest, unethical people do when they're desperate. And, if you don't think this was planned by Hillary herself, note that the buzz about 'electability' and Clinton operatives have been raising this whispering campaign angle for a few days. This was no bad apple."
Daily Kos diarist byteb: "'Our gal' is getting down and dirty now. Somehow I'm not surprised."
Daily Kos diarist turneresq: "I'm still pretty angry about the antics by their campaign. Number one, as a black male, who sees the thinly veiled racism in saying that he will be attacked as a drug dealer (although it is only the Clinton Campaign that has inferred this so far; no republican used this in his senate race in 2004, and NOBODY has even implied as much to date). Number two, as a defense attorney that has seen many persons of color turn their life around after problems with drugs and unfortunately many fall through the cracks."
CLINTON II: Trouble In Hillaryland?
Slate's Mickey Kaus giddily speculates about a potential Clinton staff shake-up in the way that only he can: "Little did I know that the idea of a 'backup' campaign staff is an idea that's been bubbling around in Hillaryland for at least a year. Obviously, current campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle is the main target -- she holds that position manly because Hillary knows she won't leak, I hear. She's now in charge in Iowa, which sets her up for the fall if Hillary should lose the state....I'm told there have been at least two unsuccessful coup attempts aimed at Solis Doyle -- one by former Hillary chief of staff Maggie Williams, the second by strategists [James] Carville and [Paul] Begala. It wouldn't be surprising if the latter were available to step in as the white knights to save Hillary should what she calls the 'best staff in the country' fail in the early going."
CLINTON III: I Wanna Be Bobby's Girl
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. writes a Huffington Post diary entry in which he likens the Clintons to the Roosevelts: "Hillary's supporters should be heartened by the fact that intense hatred is often accompanied by equally strong support. Roosevelt won four landslide victories against his opponents and crafted the architecture for the most humane, successful, generous features of modern American government. They can also take comfort in Hillary's proven ability to transform intense hatred into loyal support. I recently toured upstate New York's traditionally Republican counties which she has transformed through leadership and political acumen, into rock solid Hillary Clinton strongholds."
OBAMA: At The Top Of Craig's List
Craig Newmark, the founder of the popular website craiglist, endorses Obama on the Huffington Post: "I'm not an American 'exceptionalist'; I'm a customer service rep, and have spoken with thousands of people in the US and overseas. Everyone wants Americans to be the good guys again. We need someone who can credibly remind and lead us back into good guy-ness, in terms of of our actions and how we're perceived everywhere. Leadership means that you need to be able to bring out the best in people. Barack's the guy to do that."
THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The Cardinal's Take
Campaign Standard's Richelieu offers his thoughts on the state of the GOP race:
"As bad as the Des Moines Register debate was, complete with a wild-eyed Alan Keyes and the hopelessly smug School Marm moderator, it is still a big thing in Iowa. My guess is the biggest impact will be negative and it will be on Rudy's campaign. Giuliani's strategy has been to work hard under the surface to engineer a 'surprise' third place finish in Iowa, which would catapult him into New Hampshire five days later. Yet Rudy was weak in this vital Iowa debate and Fred Thompson was strong. Which means Rudy's third place hopes for Iowa are fading; good news for both McCain's ambitions for a New Hampshire upset and Fred Thompson's attempt to get back in the race by beating both McCain and Giuliani in Iowa with a strong third place showing. Meanwhile Huckabee was a little underwhelming -- his style may be wearing a little thin; he has the polished Arkansas political habit of speaking to voters like they are slightly dense 9th graders -- and Mitt Romney did very well, the best he's been in a long time."
LEST WE FORGET: Universal Warning Signs
The Onion lists the "Most Popular Suspicious Behaviors":
27% -- Counting exact number of steps between every two points
13% -- Handling labeled sandwiches in work refrigerator
11% -- Googling "how to build a bomb, hypothetically"
12% -- Referring to car as "terrestrial transport"
17% -- Suddenly being fluent in German
20% -- Triple eyebrow raise
Posted by Ian Faerstein at December 13, 2007 12:53 PM
The Watergate · 600 New Hampshire Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20037
202-739-8400 · fax 202-833-8069
NationalJournal.com is an Atlantic Media publication.
