Analyzing the GOP Presidential Debate

I know that there have been presidential debates before this one, but it seems like last night’s was the first one that actually had any significance. With just one day until the Ames Straw Poll, the GOP candidates took to the stage to win over Iowa voters. For some candidates, this could be a make or break weekend for their campaigns, so a lot was riding on last night.

Normally, inter-party debates are gentile and courteous, Republican debates especially, but the theme from last night seemed to be a series of one-on-one matchups between candidates: Michelle Bachmann vs. Tim Pawlenty, Ron Paul vs. Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich vs. the moderators. The first of these brawls was a long-time coming, as Mr. Pawlenty, the former governor of Minnesota and an early frontrunner in the race, was overshadowed by his fellow statesman. Mr. Pawlenty tried to use this debate to primarily shift Iowa (and probably Minnesota) voters to his side from Ms. Bachmann, citing her failure to stop the Obama agenda during her five years in Congress and her numerous failed bill amendments. Even though his attacks had some truth to them, he made himself look petty, and a little envious at the congresswoman’s remarkable electoral strength given her less-than-executive credentials. Political analysts of all sizes and shapes called this debate a make-or-break moment for Mr. Pawlenty’s campaign, but it doesn’t seem like he’s going to get the bounce he needs to stay in the ballgame past Iowa.

The surprise matchup of the evening was Ron Paul squaring off against Rick Santorum, the bombastic former Senator from Pennsylvania, over foreign policy and social issues, which are Mr. Santorum’s bread-and-butter platforms. When asked about gay marriage and civil unions, Dr. Paul defended his pro-traditional marriage beliefs, but stated that the federal government has no right to dictate the social terms of states, and that they, not DC, has the right to rule on gay marriage. Mr. Santorum disagreed, openly advocating going into states and reversing pro-gay marriage proposals, including the adoption of the federal marriage amendment, which flies in the face of nearly every pro-Tenth Amendment position he has ever taken.

Dr. Paul then took him to task on the question of whether or not to impose sanctions on Iran over its nuclear program, which he disagrees with because he sees Iran as not a major threat, and sympathizes with the nation that is surrounded by countries that are armed as well. Mr. Santorum, the author of numerous sanctions against Iran while a senator, called for a more pro-active foreign policy, which drew numerous jeers from the crowd, which leaned towards Dr. Paul for the majority of the evening.

As for Newt Gingrich, whose campaign capitulated as soon as it even started, it was about trying to challenge the mainstream media’s characterizations of him as a flip-flopper and a moral train-wreck (he is, but he doesn’t want to be seen that way). While he received applause for shooting down the moderators’ “gotcha” questions, he offered very little in policy platforms and substance to give his campaign any post-debate lift, if there was any lift in his campaign to begin with.

All in all, the candidates came out and put on a reasonably good show for the audience. As for who impressed the most, the straw poll tomorrow will determine that, as well as who could already be considered out of the running even before the caucus convenes in February.

Let the campaign season begin!