Home >> United States & Canada >> Elections & Politics

     Email   Print 

GOP Debate: Did Ron Paul Crown Guiliani Our Next President?

Ryan Mauro - 5/21/2007

Today, I'll be offering my thoughts on the Republican debate on Fox News tonight. First thoughts: My hat is off to the moderators, who posed very good questions to the candidates. It was truly interesting to see all the candidates operate under pressure.

The following is a count-down of who I feel did the best in the debate:

1) Rudy Giuliani. He took quite a hammering from the moderators and the candidates, and in the first half of the debate I thought this would begin a quick decline for him. His answers on abortion is unsatisfactory, but he was still able to position himself as anti-abortion and as a conservative. Does this make him a "conservative candidate?" Relatively speaking, of course not. However, I do believe his positions will be satisfactory for conservative voters should electability becomes the primary issue.

That is not why he won the debate, though. He won because of Ron Paul. The anger he displayed and leadership he showed in not being afraid to interrupt the flow of the debate in order to respond will resonate with all voters, especially Republicans with the War on Terrorism on their minds. That single moment won the debate for Giuliani and for the next few weeks, makes him the "War on Terror" candidate.


2) Mike Huckabee. He spoke well, was charming, charismatic, funny, and came off as a true conservative. Although the polls will surely disagree with me on this, Huckabee came in second for me because he gained the most ground. Will he be remembered and talked about the most? Absolutely not, but this debate did the most for Huckabee of all the candidates. He also now owns the pro-life issue, as his closest rival, Sam Brownback, simply can't match the believability and presidential aura of Huckabee.


3) Mitt Romney. He didn't gain anything from this debate, and in fact may have lost a small amount of support as the candidates exposed his flip-flopping. However, he comes off as the most presidential and Reagan-like (in terms of being a "Great Communicator") of the candidates. He is the most attractive candidate in terms of marketing a personality, and every time he is able to debate on TV, he will have new converts. He did successfully portray himself as more conservative than Giuliani and McCain.


4) John McCain. His recent surge in the polls due to Republican dissatisfaction with Giuliani and McCain's strong support for the war on Iraq is now being threatened. He was funny and very likeable, but on foreign policy, he sounded the normal rhetoric that we've heard from the Bush Administration. While I mostly agree with such rhetoric about the War on Terror, it sounds like more of the same old lines. As time went on, McCain also looked tired and he wasn't able to define himself as the "conservative candidate." He has a conservative record, but all the candidates mentioned tax cuts and reduced spending so much that it all became a blur with no one standing out.


5) Duncan Hunter. He did surprisingly well, was extremely well-spoken, and could very easily win the support of voters with military experience. He comes off like the strong general every soldier wants to follow, and he managed to steal the immigration issue from Tancredo. However, his Iraq policy does not seem to differ from the pre-surge stances of the Bush Administration. In terms of ideas, he did not set himself apart. I do not believe that the respect people will have for Hunter after his performance will translate into increased poll showings unless Tancredo exists from the race and immigration becomes a big issue again.

If it's true that a new bi-partisan plan on immigration reform will be approved soon, and it does not involve tough enforcement, this will be a big opening for Hunter (and Tancredo, but Hunter comes off more credible).


6) Jim Gilmore. He did better than expected, and while most commentators feel he hasn't set himself apart, I think he did. He is now the "feisty conservative" who will attack the top tier candidates. His attacks may help bring down the top tier guys a bit, but it is highly unlikely he'll be able to bring them down enough that he can climb above them. There's also the issue of personality, a problem that Thompson and Brownback also have. Setting policy aside, is there anything in their personality that attracts voters? I think not.


7) Tom Tancredo. He talked too fast, came off as too hyper and didn't speak in strong, smooth sentences. The points he was trying to make are popular among conservatives, but he comes off more as an opinionated commentator than a presidential candidate. He had one great moment, though, and that was when he talked of how the survival of Western civilization relies upon the strength of America. His strength on this issue may be undermined by his opposition to the surge and support for bringing down troop strength in Iraq around November.

Another thought: Expect anti-discrimination groups to come after Tancredo's comment for saying that "their religion" is why the terrorists will always want to kill us. Politicians painstakingly emphasize that terrorists have nothing to with the religion of Islam (or if they do, it's a perversion that contradicts its peaceful purpose), and this slip of the tongue may cause him some heat.


8) Sam Brownback. He may have won some over with his pro-life comments, but people will very soon ask him what we should do about Iraq if he opposes the troop surge. He feels political reconciliation and dividing the country into three regional states with a loose federal government is a solution, but that does not address how that will help defeat the insurgency. Republicans want to place their hopes a military solution to the war because at this point, few trust the Iraqis to get their act together.

Brownback just didn't catch fire tonight. He speaks passionately, but I for one found myself paying much more attention to my new dog (who was sleeping) than to him.



9) Tommy Thompson. When he speaks, he does not spark fire. He had plans (the only candidate with a plan for Iraq, regardless of whether it's a good one) and commanded issues with details, but his lack of personality set him aside as more of a policy expert and a presidential advisor than a presidential candidate. If you were to ask viewers whether they think he is capable of managing a federal bureaucracy well, I think most people would agree. But being a presidential candidate requires people to want to follow you and proudly display your bumper sticker on their cars. Sorry, Governor, that won't happen.


10) Ron Paul. Clearly the big loser. He was the worst speaker, with the worst personality, with the worst policy positions. He was clearly nervous the entire time which begs the question, "Congressman Paul, why are you putting yourself through this when we all know you won't win and can't adequately defend yourself?"