TPM “liveblogged” it for those like me who didn’t have the time (nor really the desire) to watch it last night. It’s not an unbiased blogging, but it’s entertaining. You can follow it here, here, here, and here. TPM awards the win to Romney, mostly because he forced Perry into a corner on Social Security, and Republicans have to be worried about electability as they think about the general, even if the refusal to rule out ending Social Security earns him points in the primaries.
The largest applause of the night came when the moderator asked Perry about the 234 executions he has presided over.
Perry also blamed the low health care coverage rate of his state on….. former President Bush!
A few other highlights. Bachman accused Reagan of being too liberal because he agreed to tax increases, but suggested that he really didn’t mean it. Or something like that.
Ron Paul is still nuts.
Huntsman tried to defend science, which drew an awkward silence.
There were a couple of other names who will be out of the running come Iowa.
Addendum: The debate in 45 seconds – capturing the essence.
6 comments
Comments feed for this article
September 8, 2011 at 12:03 pm
tra
I watched the debate, and I think TPM did a pretty good job of hitting all the highlights.
My overall impression:
Romney and Perry are both strong debaters, though neither one landed any knockout punches. I agree that Romney scored strategic points by focusing on Perry’s extremism on the issue of Social Security. He’s basically positioned himself in the (what passes for) moderate wing of Republican politics, as the alternative to a Perry / Bachmann / Palin / Santorum type candidate from the far-right.
I don’t think Bachmann really gained any traction in this debate. Whe just didn’t really distinguish herself in any way. In other words, I didn’t hear her give GOP voters any reason to support her instead of, say, Perry. Unless Perry self-destructs, I suspect she’ll continue to fade in the polls.
Ron Paul is, indeed, a bit bonkers, and this was on display even more than usual last night. I’m glad he’s opposed to the overmilitarization of our borders, but he’s not doing himself or his candidacy any favors by spinning out dark fantasies where a border fence will prevent Americans from “fleeing with their capital” in a time of massive economic upheaval. Since Paul is such a staunch libertarian (well, kinda-sorta, abortion rights being one glaring exception), you would have thought he could have advanced a simpler, more fundamental libertarian objection to militarized borders. The fact that he went straight to the dark, apocalyptic dig-up-your-mason-jars-and-run-for-your-life scenario is going to come off as pretty crazy to all but a very small number of people who share that particular kind of crazy.
Huntsman continued to show that he’s just too sane and reality-based on issues like climate change to have any real chance of winning the Republican nomination. He might be earning points with independents and swing voters, but it’s just really hard to imagine how he’ll ever get enough traction with the Republican base to win any primaries.
Herman Cain’s only real contribution was to advocate for replacing our Social Security system with the “Chilean model” (which 99.9% of the American public has probably never hear of and therefore has no idea what he’s talking about). I think the novelty of the Cain candidacy has now fully worn off, and he’s just going to be another also-ran with a couple of percentage points of lingering support in the polls, until eventually he drops out.
As far as Newt Gingrich: Stick a fork in him…he’s done.
Santorum: Ditto.
September 9, 2011 at 7:01 am
Plain Jane
“Ron Paul is, indeed, a bit bonkers”
Indeed he is, but not just over his border fence to keep people from leaving comment. Using the auto industry, which has developed and sold a number of disastrously dangerous cars and trucks, as an example for why we don’t need the FDA is way over-the-top bonkers. How could an ob/gyn forget about thalidomide which was approved in other countries for pregnant women, but blocked by the FDA here which restricted the devastation to American children whose mothers received thalidomide in foreign countries. The idea that we can trust any corporation to do what is right, with the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, is bat-shit crazy.
September 9, 2011 at 8:17 am
tra
In my opinon, a libertarian perspective can be a useful as long as it is well-tempered with pragmatism. That is obviously not the case with Ron Paul’s extremely dogmatic brand of libertarianism.
September 9, 2011 at 10:21 am
Plain Jane
Off topic but, Estelle Fennel resigned her position at HumCPR! Anyone taking bets on what her plans are?
September 9, 2011 at 11:15 am
tra
Jane:
Well the obvious possibility is that she might run for County Supervisor. I don’t know when she announced her resignation from HumCPR, but if it just took place today or in the last couple of days, then the timing would be consistent with a run for office, now that it seems pretty clear that Sohom will remaim (mostly) intact in the 2nd district.
If she does run, I suspect that in a two-way race against Clif she would give him a real run for his money. She’s well-respected in SoHum, and it seems like her tenure with HumCPR may have won her some street cred with some of the more libertarian voters thoughtout the district and, in a “strange bedfellows” kind of way, maybe even some of the more conservative-minded Fortunans. In other words, folks who may have voted for Johanna Rodoni last time around. On the other hand, Estelle will probably have lost the support of some of the voters who supported her in the primary last time — folks who weren’t going to vote for Rodoni, and voted for her instead of Clif because they saw her as the more “progressive” candidate, compared to Clif, who was positioned as the more “moderate” candidate. Clif will probably get more of those “progressive” voters this time around.
Estelle’s chances would of course depend in part on who else is running in the primary. If there is another viable candidate in the primary who is more in the mold of a traditional Fortuna-based conservative, that person could take some anti-Clif primary votes that Estelle might otherwise get. On the other hand, another Fortuna-based candidate might draw some support from Clif, too, since both would be “hometown favorites.” Meanwhile, if there was another SoHum-based candidate, presumably that might drain primary votes from Estelle’s candidacy. So, it’s wide open at this point.
I assume Clendenen, as the incumbent (and not a corrupt or especially incompent one), will be one of the two top vote-getters in the primary and will go on to be one of the two candidates on the ballot in the fall (possible, of course that he could get 50%+ in the primary round and win outright, negating the need for the fall runoff, but my guess is that he won’t). Who Clif’s opponent would be in the general election cannot be known at this time. But if it DOES come down to Estelle vs. Clif, I think she would stand a real chance of defeating him. I wouldn’t go so far as to say that she would be the favorite or start as the frontrunner, but I do think that she would be a serious contender with a real shot at victory.
September 9, 2011 at 11:32 am
tra
Of course Estelle might not be running at all.
And, who knows, maybe Clif will finally come out with a clear position on the General Plan Update, the one that Eric has said SoHummers may be “pleasantly surprised” by.
If Estelle doesn’t run, if Clif’s opponent is a far-right conservative, and if Clif comes out in favor of a reasonable GPU — for example a plan that provides for some kind of grandfathering/amnesty for existing unpermitted homes and doesn’t require an expensive, time-consuming new discretionary permit process for owner-occupied TPZ parcels — then Clif might have a chance of winning the votes of many of SoHum’s progressive-yet-libertarian-minded voters who might have preferred to vote for Estelle if she had been in the race.