First thoughts
Posted: Friday, May 04, 2007 9:14 AM by Mark Murray
Filed Under:
First Thoughts, Republican debates
From Chuck Todd and Mark Murray in Simi Valley, CA
*** Mirror Images: Maybe it's just us, but the most striking impression from last night's GOP presidential debate was how similar it was to the Democratic one. Like the Dem debate, the participants didn't really engage each other, and they actually agreed on many issues. What's more, the buzz candidate (Giuliani, like Obama) ended up disappointing many of the observers. The telegenic one (Romney, like Edwards) demonstrated why many in the party's base like him so much. And the long-standing front-runner (McCain, like Clinton) was solid and reminded us why this person -- despite the obvious dents in his/her armor -- still is one of the party's favorites. The biggest difference? There was no disruptive Gravel at last night’s debate.
*** Still W's Party: NBC's Carrie Dann notes that the candidates mentioned Ronald Reagan's name a whopping 19 times last night. Despite that (and despite the presence of the popular Schwarzenegger and Nancy Reagan in the front row), it was clear to us that this remains George W. Bush's party, even as the candidates did their best in talking about how their administrations would be different. Except Paul, the candidates largely backed the Iraq war; even with Nancy Reagan in the room, most of them opposed her call for expanding embryonic stem cell research; and all of them salivated over tax cuts. McCain and perhaps Huckabee (who wasn’t shy about saying that Rumsfeld should have been fired before last year’s midterms) were the ones who clearly tried to separate themselves from Bush. Yet even McCain is tied to him by the biggest issue of all: Iraq.
*** Giuliani: "OK" doesn't sum up his performance -- it was his response to Chris Matthews’ question if it would be a good day if Roe v. Wade were overturned. “It would be OK,” he said. He started off strong, talking about his achievements as mayor of New York and bringing optimism back to the country. But the rest of his performance was uneven.
*** McCain: There was less consensus about McCain’s when one traveled the spin room. Rival camps did their best to bring up his temper, pitching to reporters of all stripes that the comment about "gates of Hell" was an angry moment. He was confident on the issue of the war, but he also didn't allow himself to look shaky on some social issues that he hasn't enjoyed talking about in the past. Overall, McCain showed that experience with debate formats like last night's was an advantage.
*** Romney: The guy looks great on TV, doesn’t he? He was articulate, and gave a good defense of his pro-life conversion (pointing out that plenty of other famous Republicans had a change of heart as well). If McCain won on the substance, Romney clearly won on style. Yet if there are lingering questions about Obama’s experience -- especially in this post-9/11 world -- you’d have to argue that’s also true for Romney.
*** Brownback: His performance didn’t surprise us a bit: He was the strongest social conservative in the room. But what kind of general-election candidate is he? And if the goal was to separate himself from the rest of the second-tier candidates, he wasn't successful. If anything, one could argue a few other second-tiers did a better job of sticking out than Brownback.
*** Huckabee: He was the calm, cool, and disarming guy we’ve seen for the past couple of years. Which raises the question: Why didn’t he try harder -- a year or two ago -- to build an infrastructure to try to win the nomination?
*** Gilmore: Much like Dodd a week ago, he didn’t really own a moment. But he also showed that he won't be a shrinking violet in these group sessions.
*** Hunter: Anyone else surprised by Hunter's stronger-than-expected performance? He seemed to match McCain on answering the Iraq/Iran questions with authority. And, perhaps more importantly for his campaign, he stood out immigration more so than the candidate who was supposed to be the anti-immigration candidate: Tom Tancredo.
*** Thompson: No candidate looked more uncomfortable last night than Thompson, although he certainly got the point across about how many vetoes he issued as governor of Wisconsin. By the way, Thompson is pulling back from a comment he said about whether private employers should be allowed to discriminate against gay people. At the debate, he said yes, but he now says (in a phoner to CNN) that he misspoke because he didn't hear the question.
*** Tancredo: Perhaps the biggest sign of how cordial last night’s debate was Tancredo’s tone on immigration. Don’t get us wrong, he’s still against it -- but he didn’t raise his voice or really engage his rivals. When re-watching the debate, Tancredo's folks better figure out how to not let Duncan Hunter steal his immigration thunder.
*** Paul: He was no Gravel (thankfully). Some of his responses - especially on Iraq - demonstrated why the GOP is no longer a party of libertarians.
