I Watched the Republican Debate so You Don't Have To

Yes, yes I did. Most of it anyway. I saw it in installments on YouTube, and I wasn't careful about not skipping chapters, but I think I got the idea anyway. Two weeks ago, a friend asked me who I thought the Republican nominee would be. I gave a weak "Huntsman," which was based on the following very fast calculation: Romney seemed like a token frontrunner. He had the looks and the name recognition, but was not all that exciting, and seemed to be waiting for an energetic candidate to knock him out, a la Huckabee last time. Pawlenty's defining characteristic seemed to be that he was unexciting. Newt could be interesting, but it seemed an uphill battle to change the perception of him as slimy, smarmy and worst of all, wonkish. That left a bunch of crazy people and Huntsman.

Since then, I started to think (and when I say think, I mean think about who Republican voters will nominate. The thought of any Republican candidate except for Ron Paul and maybe Huntsman actually being president makes me want to wretch) about Pawlenty and Herman Cain. T-Paw may be drab, but he is shrewd too, and if Romney absorbed most of the intra-candidate flak, Pawlenty could step in as an established alternative. As a former governor, he probably has an easier time than a former senator. The senate seems like a tainted institution right now. It's unclear if there is a senate in recent memory to look back fondly on, and it's hard to make the case that you were doing the right thing as your institution fucked over the country. The nice thing for Pawlenty is that enough people know that he was governor of a midwestern state, but he can pretty much define his term there however he likes, because no non-Minnesotan knows a single thing he did.

As for Cain, there is actual excitement around him, and I can see him winning, or scoring an impressive second in Iowa, winning South Carolina, and going into Super Tuesday with a lot of momentum. It would have to be a campaign that started with small victories and built momentum from there. At the very least, he's the most intriguing of the less established candidates.

So those were my thoughts coming in. Here, organized by candidate, in rough order of how I would handicap them now, are my thoughts coming out:

Romney: I get the frontrunner thing now. I used to hate it when people would say stuff like, "Well he does look presidential." What does that mean other than confident, well-groomed, middle-aged white guy? But damn it, that's the first thing I thought when Romney started talking. He seemed professional, seasoned. He has a strong donor base, and good name recognition. He is a crisp, good looking, middle-aged white guy. He has five sons and they are all alpha males. I get the frontrunner thing.

The healthcare thing could sink him. Everyone had lots of vitriol for "Obamacare" (I don't think a single one of them called it anything else), and while Romney did a good job of distancing his own handiwork in Massachusetts, the real punches haven't started flying yet. That will cut into his support, and might take his Tea Party support from 30% to 5% (utterly made up numbers). Still, if he hasn't been too badly embarrassed by Super Tuesday, I bet he looks pretty good the next day.


The other reason that Romney makes sense as the frontrunner becomes more clear to me know as I decide who to list next. Really, no one is jumping out here. I briefly considered Rick Perry, who I know little about, and has not announced yet. Instead, let's say... ah what the hell,

Herman Cain: Yes, there is energy around this guy, but the fact that I put him second does say something about this field. I read a pre-debate primer that asked this question: will Herman Cain give real answers to real questions? After watching the debate, I don't think I can give a real answer to that question. He described the United States as a train, and Obama had put all the resources in the caboose (I'm going off memory, but I'm pretty sure that was it). He was the most buddy buddy of the candidates. He said a few times that they have a strong field, they were a good group, etc. On at least a couple of occasions, he answered a question, and when the same question was asked to another candidate, the other candidate said "What Herman said," in one form or another.

If he can keep building momentum, I could see him winning Iowa and becoming the bizarro frontrunner. I don't think he can actually get the nomination unless he can basically sweep the Tea Party vote and have Romney and Pawlenty divide up enough of the rest, so that he ends up in the lead. Or something like that. Not likely, but stranger things have happened, and hey, someone has to win.

Pawlenty: My belief that T-Paw was the secret frontrunner is now a wet sock. Pawlenty attempts to be the republicanest Republican, and the result is hilariously unremarkable. Asked if Joe Biden or Sarah Palin was a better VP pick, he initially flubbered in a way that seemed to say: Seriously? You let these other guys give their stump speech on jobs, and then you ask me to either defend a bloviating but competent Democrat, or someone who revealed herself eventually to have no sense of politics below the Canadian border? Then he recovered, blasted Joe Biden, and called Sarah Palin "a remarkable leader."

He was asked about calling the national healthcare reform bill ObamneyCare. In response he turned into the kid who disses the playground bully from a distance, but can't say anything to his face. During the scheduled not serious time, Romney announced that the Boston Bruins were up 4-0 in their game. This got a big applause. In that moment, Romney scored would-have-a-beer-with-him points. Later, in the "what did we learn tonight" section, Pawlenty threw in that he learned that the Bruins have more heart than the Canucks. It was painfully clear that he was trying for his own sports applause. If you had a beer with him,  and there was a game on, he would make confident, annoying and inaccurate observations about the game. He seemed like someone people would not especially like for reasons that they couldn't define. You can tell he's smart, seems like a nice guy, but, not unlike John Kerry in 2004, his attempts at smootheness leave him oddly uncompelling.

Ron Paul: Ron Paul is in this spot because I like him the most, and you might as well toss the rest together and see where they land. Newt, Perry and Huntsman are all more likely, but Newt's campaign just went kablooie, Perry hasn't announced yet and Huntsman wasn't at the debate.

Ron Paul is remarkable to watch in these debates. His views are unique, coherent and consistent. I don't agree with all of it, but I would like to peer in on a parallel universe with him as president. The candidates were asked about our military involvement in Libya and Yemen. No Republican candidate is allowed to like these involvements, because they are associated with Obama, and one thing this field is united on is not giving Obama an ounce of praise. However, they also have to appear tough on terrorism and wink at the defense industry. Yes Boeing, Northrup Grumman, Xe, Halliburton and the rest, you will get your contracts when I am president. Except Ron Paul. He declared, as he has been for years that we should not be in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya or Yemen. We should close many of our military bases around the world.

Most elected officials can be bent to the desires of certain industries. Their principles have conveniently placed ridges and safe zones where the rich get richer. Ron Paul is just Ron Paul. Sure, his America may be just as much of a corporate playground as any other candidate's, but right now, lobbyists mold laws and sometimes literally write them. If Big Money felt safer with Paul, he might get a little more attention.

Newt Gingrich: I don't have much to add here. I think he hangs around long enough for most people to forget about how his staff left him en masse, then bows out sometime before Super Tuesday, perhaps after New Hampshire, maybe before Iowa. Definitely one of the smartest people on the stage, but he's at the point of trying to get back to where people can start to talk themselves into liking him. Both him and Pawlenty could really use a big ground game. I wouldn't be shocked to learn that T-Paw is quietly putting that together now. I would be shocked to hear that about Newt, because, like, his entire senior staff just left.

Bachmann: Michele Bachmann took the occasion of her first answer to announce that she had filed papers to run and would be announcing in the next few days. You can't just announce you are running for president anymore. You first have to announce that you will be announcing it. Announcements, it turns out, were a repeated move for Bachmann. They got progressively less impressive. Her first one was a legit announcement (even if it was about another announcement) that made sense to do at the beginning, and called attention to herself in a logical way. Later she announced that as president, she would repeal Obamacare. There were no specifics about how she would do that, if there were powers the president holds to accomplish this on his or her own. Just a flat: I will do it. Finally, she announced, like a car dealer announcing a sale, that Obama is a one term president. No specifics on how they were going to beat him. Just that they would. At this point, announcements, it became clear, were Bachmann's trick. She might as well have brought an applause sign to the debate, it would have accomplished the same thing with equal substance.

As she talked, I kept wondering what she means to the race. Given that her chances of winning the nomination are very low, her presence must help some and hurt others, right? Rick Santorum has roughly the same (insane) platform, but you can ignore Rick Santorum. You can't just brush off Michelle Bachmann. Not in 2011 anyway, with the Tea Party wielding real clout. Cain, Bachmann and Santorum are vocally for, and part of, the Tea Party. Paul exists on his own island. Everyone else has a tricky balancing act. Watch for Romney to handle questions about the Tea Party with smooth, scripted replies and Pawlenty to waffle uncomfortably before finding something he knows how to talk about. See, there is a long list of things that Republicans are afraid to disparage, and the Tea Party is probably the most prominent right now. There were frequent moments throughout the debate that candidates tried to wriggle into the G.O.P. leotard without tearing it. The fringier candidates wear it all the time, but the Romlentys of the world have to appeal broadly and to the fringe simultaneously. Pro-choice, gay friendly or believe in man-made climate change? Back of the line.

But back to Bachmann's affect on things, I think she will take down someone, but I'm not sure who. Will she attack Romney till Tea Partiers can't look at him? Does she split the far right with Cain? Can Pawlenty step in once the smoke has cleared, or will anyone even be paying attention to him? What if she wins Iowa? In the end she might help secure things for Romney. She'll draw Tea Party votes while not being likely to take the nomination and not taking many votes from Romney. Also, she's a crazy person.

Santorum: I am always fascinated how every field has at least a candidate or two who just seems to be along for the ride, and has no chance to win. Why is that? He's not a bad speaker. His views are that of the most galvanized wing of the party. He's politically experienced. You'd think he has a greater than 1% chance. It seems he doesn't. I'm not unhappy in this case, but it's odd, no?