|
But it also was far from perfect. First, there was the conspicuous absence of the ‘top tier’ Republican candidates, who collectively chickened out because they knew they’d be skewered with many issues they didn’t want to face. But curiously, the debate’s organizers arranged lecterns on the stage for them anyway, and people even asked the ‘empty space’ a few questions. Truly, it was an awkward moment when an abortion survivor asks a question about his position to Rudy Giuliani – and there’s only a starkly cold lectern to focus the cameras on. It was kind of spooky, actually. Did someone forget that a significant portion of the audience was listening to the debate on the radio (the forum was covered on live streaming internet video, but many others listened on Christian radio)? Radio listeners couldn’t see an empty lectern to grasp the point that was trying to be made, which was basically ‘you don’t think we’re important enough to pay attention to.’ Forget that fact that some of the best questions were asked to candidates who weren’t even there. It took up valuable time for a symbolic gesture. The format itself was solid, at least from a conceptual standpoint. The questioning was divided up into three rounds, which covered a generous amount of subjects. Panelists and citizens would pose questions (in rounds one and two), and each candidate would get a chance to respond. George Stephanopoulus wasn’t there to ask only a few candidates the majority of the questions. Yet the questioning dragged (literally) on for three straight hours without a break, testing the stamina of even the most devoted of political followers. The debate would’ve benefited from a few breaks, especially when this was the longest session to date, by far. And for those watching on the live streaming video, there was constant ‘whispering’ by technical staff during the session which was distracting and somewhat unprofessional. There was also a series of yes or no questions during the so-called ‘speed round,’ which required candidates to vote yes or no on a series of questions from panelists and citizens on a wide variety of issues – most of which were a pretty easy ‘yes’ vote, and only Ron Paul answered a number of questions ‘no,’ mostly dealing with foreign policy intervention. The ‘speed round’ didn’t come through well on TV (or should I say, internet stream), and became extremely tedious after a few minutes – and didn’t really serve to demonstrate anything, other than the fact that Paul is willing to buck the party line. But we already knew that. That being said, the Values Voter debate did offer a glimpse for conservatives into the second tier candidates, and an opportunity for them to show something that they hadn’t had much of a chance to speak to in the previous gatherings. It also featured the appearances of Alan Keyes and John Cox for the first time, which was a new and refreshing change. Conservatives know Keyes from the primary seasons of 1996 and 2000, but I’m sure most people were initially surprised to see how powerful and forceful he is when appearing before a large audience. Mild mannered Duncan Hunter’s lectern was between Keyes and the always animated Ron Paul, which certainly minimized Hunter’s stature even further. John Cox was a completely new face. He talked about being an outsider – and that he truly is, having never held an elective office. All of the other candidates are known for something, but it was very odd having someone up there who is a complete ‘stranger.’ It was also new and refreshing to have a panel of conservatives asking the questions. Moderators in previous debates have asked some good questions where conservatives would want to hear the answers, but if you get a question from Phyllis Schlafly, you know it’s something relevant and sincere. There were other elements that made the Values Voter debate different from the others – namely the presence of a choir, a prayer prior to opening the questioning and a venue where mentioning God and Christianity wasn’t tucked away for the niceties of political correctness. Fred Thompson and Rudy Giuliani have admitted that they don’t attend church regularly, and this definitely would not have been the most comfortable arena for them. Maybe they would’ve felt it was a little warm in there? But it also would’ve been a good opportunity for Mitt Romney to answer questions about his Mormon faith, and potentially put Evangelical Christians’ minds at ease over the issue. But the only Romney presence for the evening was his nameplate on an empty lectern. Winners, Losers and Observations on the candidates The ‘delegates’ to the forum voted Mike Huckabee as the overwhelming winner of the debate, and I’d have to agree with that. On a stage without the ‘top tier,’ Huckabee is the front-runner, and he did nothing to hurt his chances – especially with this audience. Huckabee tossed out his usual references to his humble beginnings in Hope, Arkansas, and his faith and the fact he’s an ordained Baptist minister came up several times. But one point he made was particularly effective – the fact that he got into politics because he wanted to serve his country, and his running for president isn’t about saving the Republican Party, it’s about saving the Republic. He was asked about, and took the opportunity to explain his spotty fiscal record in Arkansas that conservative groups have been wary about. I’m not sure his answers will mollify his doubters, but I also think that fiscal conservatives could support Huckabee without worrying about a George W. Bush-like big government philosophy behind the president’s pen. Huckabee’s sense of humor is always present. He has a keen sense of timing that allows the average citizen to see that he doesn’t have a politician’s ego. For example, during the closing statements, he had four minutes to speak (all the candidates were given two ‘reserve’ minutes to use whenever they wanted, but he hadn’t used his up to the end). Huckabee joked “since I have four minutes, that’s enough time to take an offering,” which also highlighted his need for cash to keep his campaign going. Ron Paul and Alan Keyes were the others who really stood out, because of the power of their convictions, but also their personalities. Paul seems to have boisterous support wherever he goes these days, and this debate was no exception. His anti-Iraq War views again set him as the only man on stage espousing a non-intervention strategy, but there’s no longer anyone up there calling for him to take back his statements (though Duncan Hunter did tell him not to ‘blame America first’). Alan Keyes is someone most conservatives feel really comfortable with. He correctly pointed out that he’s been championing all of the issues they discussed during the debate for years. No one would have the nerve to call Alan Keyes a hypocrite, but he doesn’t have a tangible record to examine, either. His knack for oratory is second to none, but I can’t help but wish there was somewhat of a legislative background to ‘chew on.’ Losers? No one, really. Since every candidate had the opportunity to address every question in equal time (at least in the first two rounds), the viewing audience received a great opportunity to hear them talk about real issues. And no one completely dropped the ball, though Tom Tancredo and John Cox both have enormous flaws that cropped up during the discussion. Tancredo doesn’t speak well enough to compete in this type of forum. To the extent that Americans demand a ‘presidential’ stature from a candidate, Tancredo just doesn’t have it. He stumbles through too many answers, and he even used up his discretionary two minutes telling a story about feeding ‘the good side’ of human nature. If he’d had five minutes to make that point during casual conversation at a party, the story might work, but not on stage in front of a large audience who needs you to articulate points effectively and concisely. John Cox did a serviceable job during his first debate, and considering that he’s not a politician, is a pretty good speaker. But there’s an inherent credibility gap present as well, since no one knows anything about him. If Alan Keyes doesn’t have much of a record to ‘chew on,’ then Cox has nothing at all. He’s some CEO from the Chicago area who talks about ‘real people’ and the need to find someone who is the anti-Hillary candidate. Other Notes
Sam Brownback had a strong performance, and seems to be growing into his skin when it comes to debating and making an impression. He told his own personal faith story, about when he was a 13-year old boy on the way out to feed the pigs, that Christ ‘grabbed him,’ and he’s had unwavering faith ever since. The more you hear from Sam Brownback, the more you like him, and this type of debate is the perfect setting for him, because ‘values’ is an area where he’s very strong and allows him to be more forceful in answering questions. He also did a decent job of explaining his soft immigration stance, which goes outside mainstream conservatism but doesn’t quite reach the Bush Amnesty level. Ron Paul also is making a greater impression with each appearance, simply because he’s willing to disagree with everyone else and still command respect from those present. Paul’s feisty personality and strength of convictions is notably absent in all of the ‘top tier’ candidates, and though he will never get the party’s nomination, he is a great addition to the candidate field. Summing it up
Conservatives looking for a candidate to support probably felt heartened by the Values Voter debate. All of these candidates have flaws, but here at least, conservatism didn’t take a back seat to liberal talking heads, syrupy contrived citizen questions or animated snowmen. You’d like to think that some of these candidates will gain traction from such a forum, but it probably wasn’t viewed widely enough to make much of an overall difference in the poll numbers. Mike Huckabee could conceivably get a boost into the top tier, but if he can’t raise money, it won’t make a difference. It was terrific to see a debate where people didn’t see the need to suppress their faith in God or their Christian beliefs, but this format probably wouldn’t work with the country’s more secular approach to politics. In other words, conservatives can take some satisfaction that ‘real’ issues were discussed, if only for one night, but unless the national polls start creeping up for some of these more conservative candidates, the search will continue to try and find something to like from the top tier in the Republican Party. And I don’t think we’ll get it. |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|