GOP Orlando Debate – More of the same, less of the same

By Jeffrey A. Rendall, 10/21/07

 

Fresh off appearing at the Values Voter Summit in Washington, DC, the eight remaining GOP presidential candidates (minus Alan Keyes) met in Orlando, Florida for the latest presidential debate. Maybe it’s because we’re getting a better look at them, and maybe it’s because they’ve had months to practice, but this was the best such forum to date.

 

Mitt Romney mentioned it in the opening minutes, that the candidate who can unite the three groups of conservatives -- social conservatives, fiscal conservatives and security/military conservatives -- will win the GOP nomination and potentially, the presidency. That’s the coalition that Ronald Reagan built, and once again, there was no shortage of Reagan name-dropping in Orlando.

 

FOX News televised the debate and mercifully kept it to 90 minutes. The major issues of the day have been hashed out time and again, and extending the length of discussion wouldn’t really serve a purpose. The Iraq War can only be hashed over so many times, and at least for this debate, it was tucked nicely in the background. 

 

For those who’ve been following the debate closely – and for those who saw all the candidates speak at the Values Voter Summit – there’s precious little ‘new’ for the competitors to talk about.

 

So FOX News’s Chris Wallace introduced a series of questions at the beginning of the debate to get the adversaries talking about each other, beginning with a Fred Thompson quote about being the most conservative candidate in the race.

 

Wallace asked Rudy Giuliani if Thompson was more conservative than him. Rudy ducked the question, instead offering the George Will quote about his running the most conservative government of the past fifty years during his tenure as Mayor of New York City. We’d heard that one at the Values Voter Summit as well, and at times you wondered whether they could conduct a ‘debate’ simply by standing up cardboard cut-outs of the candidates and just replaying sound-bites from their past speeches.

 

Didn’t some ‘progressive’ already try something similar on the internet?

 

It’s true, all of the candidates employed versions from their standard stump speeches, and perhaps that’s why they’re actually starting to sound competent and informed on most of the issues.

 

If there was anything new in this debate, it was a ‘new’ Fred Thompson. Thompson lulled and bored the audience to death just days before in Washington, but the Fred we saw on Sunday night was straight out of the movies – alive and full of fight. How could this be?

 

Maybe he’d read some of the news reports and was finally getting the message that he’d have to show a little life to justify his high polling numbers. Whatever the reason, Thompson took on his opponents and again was asked to clarify his position on fixing Social Security and Medicare, so we’ll give him credit for stirring the pot.

 

Because of the initial round of questions (asking the top-tier candidates about quotes from each other), it was over ten minutes into the debate before Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter even got to speak. Despite delivering strong presentations to the Values Voters, Hunter and Tancredo finished near the bottom at the meeting’s straw poll. Both of these men are improving as the months go along, but it doesn’t look they’ll ever gain the necessary traction to compete. They’re increasingly being pushed to the sides (as Tancredo mentioned), and it might be time for them to consider bowing out, as Sam Brownback did a few days ago.

 

Rudy Giuliani also appears to have changed his position on a potential Federal Marriage Amendment. Rudy has always stated that he’d oppose such a notion, but now he’s saying that if a few states start allowing homosexual marriages, that such a constitutional amendment might be necessary.

 

He apparently mentioned that to the Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins, and Perkins said he was shocked to hear such a thing. So are the rest of us, as it’s a complete departure from Giuliani’s traditionally gay-friendly agenda. Maybe he’s starting to flip-flop in order to appeal to social conservatives.

 

Next Rudy will announce that he’s in favor of an amendment to protect unborn life. Nah, that will never happen.

 

 

This was the first debate that there really wasn’t a clear winner or loser, at least in terms of individual candidates.

 

If there was a ‘loser’ at all, it’s the so-called lower-tier as a group. The debate moderators are starting to accept Mike Huckabee as an honorary member of the top-tier, but as alluded to above, Hunter, Tancredo and to some extent Ron Paul – are increasingly being marginalized.

 

Paul continues to receive a warm reception from his followers, but Sunday’s debate was the first where he continually drew boos from the audience (towards the end) when discussing, again, his non-interventionist foreign policy views.

 

There’s quite a lot of merit and truth in Paul’s views, but they don’t seem to be resonating with Republicans, most of which continue to support the Bush labeled ‘War on Terror’ and a continued military presence in the Middle East and the world.

 

Paul’s voice is still a refreshing departure from the standard line of the day, but it’s not a winning argument for him. No matter how he re-phrases his philosophy or passionately argues for it, he’s preaching to the wrong choir. Whether he’s correct on the issues is open to debate, but it’s not winning him many friends in the Republican Party – and that’s the party whose nomination he’s seeking.

 

It’s true, Paul’s foreign policy message would be more acceptable to Democrats, but amongst conservatives and Republicans, only the followers of Pat Buchanan would go to the lengths Paul has in order to call for a complete military withdrawal from the various conflicts and borders around the world.

 

For better or worse, it looks like the Republican Party is stuck with a version of the neocon aggressive military presence abroad.

 

I wouldn’t call Hunter or Tancredo ‘losers’ of this debate as much as essentially non-entities. When given an audience to present a full-length vision of the conservative movement and the issues confronting the country (such as at the Values Voter Summit), they do a very credible job. But these brief presidential debates don’t allow for that, and it’s hardly ‘equal time’ amongst the competitors – so Hunter and Tancredo end up the losers.

 

That’s a shame – and I’m sure the candidates and their advisors are racking their brains trying to discover the ‘secret’ to exit their lower-tier status. It’s becoming more evident that that’s not going to happen in this election cycle.

 

 

Unfortunately, the top-tier. They have the most money, the most solid organizations and receive the lion’s share of questioning and TV time from all the networks.

 

The popular media is steering this campaign, and this debate was no different. The first question went to Rudy (with the mention of Fred Thompson), and the first several minutes was essentially a ping-pong match between Giuliani, Thompson, Romney and McCain.

 

Did they offer something new and different? No. But they were forced to answer to the things they’ve been saying about each other on the campaign trail. That was somewhat of a departure from the past, but as mentioned above, merely gave them an opportunity to regurgitate their carefully crafted messages.

 

I wouldn’t call Fred Thompson the ‘winner’ by any means, but the ‘new’ Fred was someone that Republicans had been expecting to see all along. He was effectively able to craft his message to make him sound like a conservative (though we know differently), and demonstrated an ability to throw out some catchy lines, the perfect performance in a forum of this type.

 

To this observer, Mitt Romney appears to be assuming almost a front-runner’s role. Buoyed by his poll numbers in the early states and his ability to generate victories in many of the attention-grabbing straw polls, Romney appears increasingly confident and competent when compared to his rivals.

 

The Teflon Romney is morphing into a likeable character as well.  You no longer think ‘rich guy’ when you see him, more like ‘family man.’ Maybe that’s what six months on the road will do for you, and there’s no one that’s working harder to win the nomination than Mitt Romney.

 

For example, the candidates were asked their opinion of national polls that show them all trailing Hillary Clinton in a hypothetical general election match-up. Giuliani and McCain are running fairly close to Hillary, but Romney is 12% behind. He emphasized change in his answer, a message that will hit home if he ever gets the nomination.

 

Mike Huckabee is also appearing confident, waxing poetic on his populist themes and working his first-rate speaking ability to draw warm applause from the audience.

 

Political pundits are increasingly talking up Huckabee’s ability to please the crowds, and his poll numbers are inching up in some of the early states. He’s the ‘dark horse’ that many are rooting for, but if he doesn’t start raising legitimate campaign cash, he simply isn’t viable.

 

 

The subject of healthcare came up repeatedly in the Orlando debate. Healthcare receives its usual 1/3 of the time when the Democrats debate, but this time the Republicans were given an opportunity to speak to the issue.

 

There were a variety of visions presented, mostly centering on empowering individuals to take charge and responsibility of their own lives. Tom Tancredo was the only one to mention that we should be debating whether the federal government even needs a role in healthcare, but then said health savings accounts were a good idea if the feds are going to be involved.

 

Like it or not, it looks like we’re stuck with some sort of federal role in the industry.

 

Social Security and Medicare are also getting some attention – and what you hear from the Republicans is quite a departure from their Democratic counterparts. The two parties’ divergent views on these very important problems is beginning to take shape, so expect to see these issues hashed out in next year’s general election debates.

 

One note: Mike Huckabee was the only one to specifically mention that we need to stop spending the Social Security trust fund.

 

 

If there was any other ‘winner’ of the Republicans’ Orlando debate, it was Ronald Reagan.

 

Say again?

 

Mitt Romney said “I’ll be able to strengthen the house that Reagan built,” and the other candidates repeatedly invoke Reagan’s name to make themselves sound credible on all the issues. 

 

At times, it’s a strain to remember that Reagan left office nearly twenty years ago, yet his presence is still so alive today. Commentators such as Peggy Noonan have argued that these men need to stop the constant references to Reagan and just be themselves – and that’s solid advice.

 

If anything, it would serve them well to study Reagan’s message throughout his political career. If they truly want to be like Ron, they’d better start talking up freedom and a limited role in government, rather than a warmed over and slightly improved version of the Bush presidencies.

 

Reagan set himself apart by communicating great ideas, and he proved that America was receptive to such an agenda. These candidates are improving at presenting their messages, but they’ve still a ways to go. Conservatives have been watching and waiting, and although the picture seems to be getting clearer, it’s simply not the time to back any of these candidates with the full force of effort and treasure.

 

Time will tell, and the GOP will nominate one of these candidates – and they’ll either be worthy of support, or they won’t. But as the non-candidate speakers at the Values Voter Summit continually stressed, don’t stop pushing them to advance the conservative agenda. If we keep pushing, they’ll raise themselves to the level where they need to be at.