So this was Rick Perry’s big debut on the national stage and, meh, he was only OK. Perhaps that’s being too kind. Sure, there were moments when he looked and sounded like a heavyweight contender but these were generally (though not exclusively) when he could talk about Texas. The Lone Star State is a mighty big place but America is even bigger and Perry looked like a man still coming to terms with the leap from state-level scrutiny to the stuff that comes with prancing on the national stage.
Still, as Jonathan Bernstein says, we should not read too much into this: there will be many more debates before Iowa and New Hampshire and ample time for Perry to improve. Nevertheless it would be a good idea – for him – to find some plausible answers on such obvious issues as the future of social security or climate change. On the latter his scepticism won’t hurt in the GOP primary but he might want something a little better than “Galileo was outvoted for a while” when it comes to the general election; on the former there’s not much that can be done since he’s now on tape calling the scheme (which, whatever its problems, remains mighty popular) a “monstrous lie” and a “Ponzi scheme”. Advantage Obama on that front.
However it was when Perry talked about the death penalty that you saw how his candidacy can tap into the conservative soul: he was utterly untroubled by the thought he might have authorised the execution of an innocent prisoner (as he almost certainly did in the case of Cameron Todd Willingham) and, what’s more, the audience cheered him to the echo. I thought it revolting but it was popular stuff, delivered in the appropriate “alpha male” style of a man with balls big enough to fry an innocent man. And, in the end, that’s what a large part of Perry’s appeal rests upon: an idea of how a conservative Presidential candidate should look, talk and walk. Never mind the substance, feel the attitude dude.
Elsewhere, Mitt Romney was poised and in command and never, ever threatened to be exciting. Sure, there was a fun moment when he suggested Perry’s claims to the Texas Miracle were akin to Al Gore’s (misquoted) suggestion he’d invented the internet, prompting Perry to compare Romney to Michael Dukakis but that was about it. Here’s a non-controversial prediction: these two are going to hate one another very soon.
Romney, however, continues to play his Leading from Behind game, trusting that Perry will fade and the establishment will rally to Mitt for want of any other plausible alternative. This could happen but it lessens Romney’s margin for error: by making his case as the last, best, only alternative he’s gotta play error-free ball since he’s not really selling his own upside.
Two answers stood out: Romney said the US needs a border fence (like, fine, whatever) and it’s gotta be big and shiny even though border agents in San Diego assure him a fence won’t work because it will never be tall enough to keep up with innovations in Mexican ladder production. So other things must be considered too. This was classic Romney: chuck out a popular soundbite then follow it with an answer aimed at elite opinion. Impressive, in its own mildly gruesome way. (Incidentally, what’s conservative about Romney’s claim that “the President can reshape the economy”?) Nevertheless, his attack on Obama as a nice guy unfortunately out of his depth is well-judged and designed for November-time, not just Iowa and New Hampshire.
As for the others, what is there to say? This was the evening Michele Bachmann discovered it ain’t gonna happen. This is the Romney and Perry show and she was just the warm-up act. She looked a little crest-fallen and forlorn. It was almost sad. Ron Paul continues to be treated as a circus freak show by debate moderators and then answers questions in a sufficiently goofy manner as to further encourage the moderators’ prejudices. Newt Gingrich is plainly only on stage to pimp his books while it remains unclear why Rick Santorum and Herman Cain are invited at all.
That leaves Jon Huntsman who was, using the traditional debate-scoring method, plainly the most impressive performer and much improved on his previous outings. Perhaps that’s explained by the fact that Huntsman must be intelligent enough to appreciate that he’s got no chance of actually winning and so, dash it, he might as well enjoy himself and tell a few things as he sees ’em. Unfortunately he don’t see ’em as the GOP electorate does. In fact Huntsman talks as though he’s a character created by Aaron Sorkin: the kind of platonic notion of the sort of intelligent Republican upper-crust liberals like to imagine might exist who, while regrettably misguided on some issues, is nevertheless obviously as good as it will ever get when it comes to dealing with people who are, fundamentally, evil.
So there you have it. Andrew, as always, has a good round-up of judgements from elsewhere in the blogosphere. Toby Harnden’s take is good too. Ditto that from my chum Peter Suderman.
Comments