At a Crossroads at the Western Republican Debate

The Republican Party will soon begin the process of selecting its 2012 nominee for president in earnest. After numerous debates, countless speeches, and millions of dollars in advertising, one of the frontrunners remains Mitt Romney. He's been the great survivor of the race: he started on top and he still has a fine chance to finish on top despite some bumps along the road. Other challengers -- Trump, Bachmann, Perry -- have seemingly already seen their moments in the sun come and go. At the moment, Herman Cain seems to be coalescing the anti-Romney vote around himself, but no one knows if Cain will be able to avoid running into the same brick wall that the other Romney alternatives smashed into. With the debate season ending and the primary season soon to begin, the Western Republican Debate at Las Vegas offered the lagging candidates one more opportunity to upset the apple cart that Romney and Cain are coasting on.

By and large, they took that opportunity. Herman Cain's 9-9-9 tax plan was criticized by all -- Ron Paul called it regressive, Michele Bachmann accused it of introducing a value-added tax to the United States, and Rick Perry claimed to have something flatter and fairer up his sleeves. Mitt Romney faced familiar criticisms from this election cycle as well as from the last one: Rick Santorum pointed out that voters had no reason to trust that the person who signed Romneycare into law in Massachusetts would work to overturn Obamacare as a president, Newt Gingrich adduced Romneycare as an example of government overreach and chided Romney for failing to address the rising costs of health care, and Perry continued to contrast the jobs created in Texas during his reign vs the jobs created (or not created) in Massachusetts under Romney while also attacking Mitt for hiring illegal immigrants to work on his personal property. It was a vigorous and sometimes unfriendly debate, but when the smoke had cleared I reflected on one reason why Romney and Cain are ahead: they're unflappable. Both men always respond when they're attacked, but they never seem to strain to answer every specific criticism...instead, they just say what they want to say, and they generally have plenty to say. Cain kept defending 9-9-9; Romney maintained his usual line on his health care plan being appropriate for Massachusetts but not the nation as a whole and tried to turn Perry's attacks back towards the Texas governor. Even though some of the attacks last night had substance, Santorum and Perry ended up looking bad (and even drew some boos) by being so aggressive towards candidates who exuded calmness and confidence.

I suspect Herman Cain was hurt in the debate more than Romney simply because Romney supporters have likely heard all the criticisms directed towards their candidate before. Cain supporters may not have quite made their minds up about 9-9-9 just yet and may well not have realized that their candidate supported TARP when it was proposed. Like Romney, Cain seems to have a tendency to walk back on past remarks: he not only has changed his mind on TARP, but he also insisted that his recent remarks regarding the possibility of bargaining with al-Qaeda in a hostage crisis had been misconstrued. (I think what really happened is that Cain dared to suggest in an earlier interview that there might be exceptions to the conventional wisdom of "never negotiating with terrorists" but realized he'd be skewered over it by the establishment if he stood by his remarks. In truth, there are no "nevers" in government, just in campaigns.) Cain is a good candidate for the times -- he has focused on business and economic issues at a time when the economy is struggling -- but if he loses trust among voters when it comes to his bedrock issues his other weaknesses (most notably his lack of comfort with foreign policy issues) make him very vulnerable. I suspect as well that his lack of political experience is something many establishment Republicans can't get past even though it undoubtedly helps him with Tea Party supporters who often have an instinctive distrust for career politicians already tainted by Washington.

If Cain falters, where does the anti-Romney vote go? Time is probably running out for Rick Santorum and Michele Bachmann, two of the best attack dogs of this debate season. With Bachmann in particular, I've been surprised how her strong performances in several debates have generally failed to bring her polling dividends. I suspect she's been fact-checked to death: her tendency to speak off the cuff leads her to make frequent factual errors, many of them trivial, which in turn makes for excellent fodder for the media. Ultimately, who would really want to vote for a person if you can't trust what she is saying? If she's too lazy to do get her facts in order before she presents them, that makes one wonder if she's willing to do the hard work the presidency requires. Nonetheless, I thought her attacking of Rick Perry regarding the HPV vaccine mandate in Texas and her criticisms of Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan in the last two debates were pivotal moments -- the woman really does possess rhetorical skill and I have no doubt that she has influenced the outcome of the race no matter what happens from here on out. If she just combined those debating skills with discipline, I suspect she'd be bringing in more campaign dollars and doing better in polling right now. That said, she's also inconsistent...the time she wasted on vague populist appeals to moms and on bashing President Obama for cheap applause made her something of an afterthought in the Nevada debate. Santorum is also good at debating, but he can come across as mean and rude. More importantly, perhaps, he's the social conservative candidate at a time when social conservatism seems to be on the wane. That doesn't necessarily indicate the death of an ideology; rather, I think even social conservatives are more concerned with the economy right now than with other issues.

Newt Gingrich may have the best shot to "do a McCain" and leap into a frontrunner position from the middle of a crowded pack. He always comes across as knowledgeable in the debates, and he has anecdotes from decades of legislative experience to draw on at any time...he has a knack for sounding like a guy who has thought at length about whatever he's talking about and, in contrast to Bachmann, he actually seems to like doing his homework. To this point, the other candidates have had little reason to attack Gingrich...but there's where the problem could be. Romney slapped back at Gingrich's criticisms of Romneycare by pointing out Newt's previous support for the individual mandate -- that was effective, but there are more skeletons in Gingrich's closet. If his candidacy picks up steam, he'll have to discuss the ethics violation that cost him $300,000 and his trouble marital history. Many people still think "scandal" when they hear Newt Gingrich's name. Indeed, anyone having such a long legislative record is generally quite attackable on a number of fronts -- Gingrich's personal scandals just make it harder for him to survive intense scrutiny.

The two Texans in the debate, Rick Perry and Ron Paul, get my nod for "most improved debaters." Both men have had their moments of verbal fumbling in previous debates, but both looked sharper in Las Vegas. Not so long ago, Perry was THE frontrunner, but he's well-behind Romney and Cain in polling at the moment. Flat debate performances and the lack of an inspired message have dogged the Texas governor. These are still his biggest problems after last night -- I thought he performed better than in previous debates, but that's because he was so bad in those other ones! He's still struggling to find an effective message and is using attacks on other candidates (well, mainly just one: Romney) for cover. Increased oil and gas production could produce jobs and lower energy costs, but it's hardly the cure for all of America's economic problems seems ludicrous...nonetheless, "Drill, drill, drill" seems to be the sum total of Perry's jobs plan. While I do think Governor Romney's economic record and personal penchant for hiring illegal immigrants are valid points for criticism, Governor Perry looked a little desperate to find any attack that would really "stick" and resonate. While Perry is trying to regain support he has lost, Congressman Paul's steady polling suggests he is doing a great job of holding on to his core supporters but not bringing in enough new support to rival Romney and Cain. While some of Paul's views, particularly his noninterventionist approach to foreign policy, are outside of the Republican mainstream, I also think one reason Ron hasn't attracted more support is because he is not a great speaker: he has a marked tendency to ramble on and go on tangents instead of focusing on the subject at hand. In Las Vegas, we saw a more focused Ron Paul: he didn't mumble, he didn't ramble, and he answered questions with vigor and clarity. That doesn't mean the audience liked everything he had to say; for instance, there were boos when he mentioned detainees in Guantanamo being held without charge. The hardest votes for Paul to win belong to those who fear his policies would make the country and the world less safe, especially considering that many of other candidates pander to these voters excessively. I find it a pity that there isn't someone in the race who isn't a strict noninterventionist like Paul but would still be willing to cut defense spending in a targeted way. I don't really think that something like removing troops from Germany at this point would be that controversial among US voters, but the other candidates are so frightened of being accused of weakening America's defenses that all defense cuts are placed off the table. That makes deficit reduction that much harder. One good thing for Congressman Paul is that foreign policy is probably not going to be voters' top concern in this election (barring a catastrophe in the next year at least) -- if it were, I doubt Herman Cain would be flying so high right now. The challenge for Paul will be to make sure that Republican voters realize where they share common ground with him: a great example of this was Paul's defense of Nevadans' right to decide whether or not they want Yucca Mountain to be used as a nuclear waste storage site. Paul's views on cutting unnecessary and harmful governmental departments are shared by many non-libertarian conservatives as well.

One invited candidate failed to show up at the Western Republican Debate due to his disagreement with Nevada's attempt to hold its caucuses early which made it difficult for New Hampshire to hold its traditionally early primaries (by state law they cannot be held within a week of a similar contest). Sadly for him, I'm not sure that many people noticed his absence. Jon Huntsman's one state strategy centered around New Hampshire is marginalizing him in the rest of the country -- even worse, in that one state Mitt Romney is still likely to prevail! I'm sure the Granite State will take note of Huntsman's sacrifice, but Nevadans and Republicans from other states may not be impressed.