New Hampshire Republican Debate -- Mike Huckabee vs Ron Paul?

The most interesting thing about the September 5th Republican debate on the campus of the University of New Hampshire to me was that the first tier candidates seemed to be essentially overshadowed by two of the second tier candidates. Whether this is indicative of a changing of the guard is debatable, but I'm convinced that the Republican nomination is very much up for grabs now. The two candidates who won yesterday's debate are, in my opinion, Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul. Huckabee has performed well at all the debates, but what he has needed all along is for his charisma and his eloquence to be utilized in support of some overarching message or platform. Huckabee seems to have found his platform now: honor. Why should America remain in Iraq? According to Huckabee, the surge should continue because it is the right and honorable thing to do. Huckabee's personal honor -- essentially, his steadfast adherence to what he believes to be right -- is what will enable him to make strong decisions in moments of crisis (a nuclear standoff with Iran, for instance). Although Huckabee is a Christian minister and his political positions are strongly influenced by his religion, the former governor from Arkansas has a knack for framing issues in such a way that his message can appeal to everyone, and he is relatively cautious about bringing religion directly into politics. While Huckabee appeals to Americans' sense of honor, Ron Paul stirs their intellect. When Paul mentioned Mossadegh in a previous debate, I knew he was a bit unusual; to speak of a foreign historical figure most American voters will never have heard of takes a bit of bravery. He continues to be unusual...he is the one candidate who seems to always approach voters as intellectual equals, no matter whether he is discussing strange policy changes, the true legacy of the Reagan administration, or the rise of the neoconservatives. He is the theoretician par excellence in this political race; his biggest weakness, of course, is that so many of his theories are untested in reality. He was forceful and eloquent in the New Hampshire debate, and the flatness of the other candidates besides Huckabee made his performance seem all the more impressive.

The debate's most memorable exchange was surely the exchange between Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul over the Iraq issue. Huckabee, as I mentioned earlier, posited the issue as a matter of honor, and he linked the honor of America as a nation to the personal honor of all Americans. Paul, as usual, appealed to the intellect: supporting failed policy for the sake of "saving face" is foolishness. Huckabee is perhaps the most eloquent defender of the surge I have ever heard, but I do think Paul got the better of this exchange ultimately. The emotional power of Huckabee's argument rested too much on a single word, "honor"; Paul took all the mysticism out of the word by linking it to the phrase "saving face," a truly trivial reason for conducting military operations. However, if Paul did indeed score a victory here, his margin of victory was slight. Paul greatly weakened his argument for withdrawal by his unwillingness to even address the issue of what might happen in Iraq if American troops pull out of the country. I can accept that those who predict doom and gloom for Iraq in the case of an American withdrawal could very well be wrong given their prior track record, but I do expect to hear an alternative vision from anyone who is asking me to reject the other predictions. What Paul didn't say spoke volumes.

While Paul and Huckabee stole the show, the frontrunners stumbled. Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney were both put in extremely uncomfortable situations by questioning viewers. One audience member wondered aloud whether Giuliani's personal life could be reconciled with the "family values" dear to the hearts of many social conservatives. Another questioner severely chided Romney for the governor's comparison of his sons' helping him with his campaign with military service. Romney had already apologized for the statement, so I was surprised that he looked as uncomfortable as he did when confronted with it again. Perhaps he was wondering to himself, "Is that going to haunt me for the rest of this campaign?" I guess it very well could, and perhaps Romney was right in that case to acknowledge the greatness of military sacrifice without unduly castigating himself for his flippant statement. Those who did not hear Romney's original apologies may well be angered more that Romney seemed so eager to brush aside that criticism, however, so I think Romney would've been better served if he had delivered a more heartfelt apology. The question posed to Giuliani was far more difficult, and Rudy seemed to realize that there was no way he could deliver a perfect answer to it. Giuliani acknowledged that he was not a "perfect man" and essentially declared himself not to be a "family values" candidate per se; he presented his campaign as based on issues like crime, terrorism, and taxes instead. I think Romney will become more comfortable speaking about his misstatement in the future, but I wonder very much if Giuliani will be able to avoid being labeled as the serially monogamous candidate who openly rejects family values. Indeed, I'm starting to wonder if the bottom could fall out of the Giuliani campaign soon. He has become far too repetitive and mechanical in answering debate questions; I know I've already grown very tired of hearing about Giuliani's escapades as the mayor of New York City. To trumpet one's record is fine to a point, but this approach taken together with Giuliani's desire to keep his private life outside of discussion makes the Giuliani campaign seem increasingly inhuman and impersonal. The Paul and Huckabee campaigns seem to be where the vitality and human interest are at the moment.