GOP Debate: A Candidate Report Card

By Nick Bernold

On October 11, Dartmouth College hosted a debate featuring the candidates for the Republican nomination for the presidency. It was an exciting opportunity for the community to take center stage in national politics. Especially exciting for Hanover High, two students, Kate D’Orsi and Jack Noordsy from the Economics and Public Policy class, were invited to watch the debate from the front row of Spaulding Auditorium, and they got to briefly meet the candidates before the debate.

The consensus winners of the debate seemed to be Herman Cain and Mitt Romney, as confirmed by both Kate and a poll of Dartmouth students who attended the debate. The loser was Rick Perry, who yet again seemed shaky in a debate setting. Ron Paul and Rick Santorum also had relatively weak debates, since they did not receive many questions and did not use their speaking time memorably, though Jack thought that Santorum did a good job staying tenacious in the debate. What follows is my personal analysis of each candidate and how they fared in the debate.

Mitt Romney: Romney got off to a rough start as anchor Charlie Rose asked him a series of difficult questions, and especially as he was boxed into essentially saying he supports the TARP bailout of 2008, a dangerous position to voice within a Republican Party that is shifting right to accommodate the Tea Party, which was created in direct response to anger about the bailouts. The former governor sounded shifty and incompe- tent as he tried to dodge the question by claiming, “[the possibility of another bailout] is too hypothetical for me to answer that question.” However, he regained his footing nicely in the latter half of the debate, touting time and time again his credentials as a private sector success. Mr. Romney has the advantage of being the contradiction the GOP seems to want, since he has ties to the private sector and experience in the financial sector, but can also dodge the critique of inexperience, since he has governor of Massachusetts. He solidified his position as frontrunner during the segment in which candidates could ask each other questions, receiving by far the most and fielding them all adroitly. He even turned Perry’s question comparing “Romneycare” to “Obamacare” around, defending his stance while drawing attention to the millions of uninsured Texans. Grade: A-

Herman Cain: Once a long shot, Cain seems to now be second or third in the pecking order. His success: 9-9-9. While others have been extremely reluctant to release any kind of concrete plan, Cain has incessantly belted out his plan simplify the Tax Code by establishing a 9 percent income tax, 9 percent corporate tax and 9 percent national sales tax. This semblance of a tangible plan, simple as it may be, has greatly appealed to voters. The former Godfather’s Pizza CEO’s fellow candidates made the mistake of mentioning and arguing against 9-9-9 repeatedly, only further legitimizing Cain. Not only did this give the plan credibility, but according to the rules of the debate, any participant whose ideas were specifically attacked or who was mentioned by name was allowed an immediate thirty-second rebuttal. Cain’s opponents blundered in giving the still relatively obscure candidate so much face time, during which he was able to exhibit a humorous and engaging personality. Though Cain did nothing but point out the superiority of his plan as it applied to every situation (and briefly defend his time at the Federal Reserve), he won the debate because of sheer exposure. His opponents were only able to point out that 9-9-9 was too simplistic, without providing any economic details to support their argument. Though Cain’s plan seems to have much more bark than bite, it might appeal to voters who are not in- clined to research the intricacies of the Tax Code, but are charmed by Cain’s straightforward attitude and concrete proposal in a sea of murky ideas. Grade: A

Rick Perry: Perry maintains the third spot, but also continues his slide. The newest addition to the field rocketed to the head of the pack in the weeks after he joined the race, but he has been decidedly unimpressive since. Perry’s favorite statistic is that his state, Texas, has created one third of the American jobs created since 2009, a winning line for an election that is gearing up to be almost exclusively focused on jobs and economic recovery. Unfortunately for Perry, he has been embroiled in various scandals in addition to doing poorly in the debates, causing focus to shift from his jobs record to more juicy rumors of his campaign’s troubles. On October 11, he again seemed at a loss. Perry’s favorite topic was job creation in the energy sector, and his favorite target was the EPA. Though his policy is a matter of opinion, he did himself no favors by returning time and time again to this same subject, especially since while energy might be a big industry in the Lone Star State, it hardly seems a cure to the whole country’s economic woes. While Cain’s conviction seemed fresh and innovative, Perry’s seemed stale and uninspiring. He did not make any major blunders, but his failure to score any points apart from hammering home energy policy, in addition to his physical discomfort at times (he could be seen grimacing and fidgeting while others spoke), marked this debate as another failure. As a frontrunner on the decline, it was incumbent upon the Texas governor to make a splash and turn his fortunes around. But he certainly did no such thing, and this debate may well be looked back upon as the moment his campaign officially became a flash in the pan. Grade: C-

Michele Bachmann: This was a positive showing for Bachmann, but this may be because she came into it so mistrusted. Viewed by more moderate elements of the GOP as a laughable candidate catering to the Tea Party, Bachmann has had her name attached to many of the more unfortunate controversies of the primary so far, including her claims that HPV vaccines are linked to mental retardation and the questionable practices of her husband’s mental health clinic. In this forum, Bachmann seemed amiable and mainstream, agreeing with her adversaries on the horrors of Barney- Frank and “Obamacare” and distinguishing herself only by a few well-placed jokes. Her path to the White House remains unclear, however: she has been such a polariz- ing figure that few are likely to be swayed by her performance at this debate. She must hope for Cain’s fortunes to sour just as fast as they rose, and for Perry to continue his slide. If she can position herself as the leading anti-Romney candidate, she should be able to capture Iowa caucus. A win there would provide both money and legitimacy, and though there is virtually no chance of her winning New Hampshire, she could build on her momentum in Southern states attracted by her social conservatism and Tea Party allegiance. Wins in South Carolina and Florida would put her well on the way to facing Obama. Grade: B+

Jon Huntsman: The governor of Utah had a good showing, but it won’t be enough to get him into the top tier. The candidate’s biggest weakness, his work for President Obama as an ambassador to China, did not come up, but in a debate solely focused on his perceived strong suit, the economy, he did not have as much of an impact as he needed to. Huntsman has based his hopes on his experience in global economics and foreign policy. He did a good job when Romney was asked about China, which launched a small discussion on that topic, and he looked much more reason- able than the likes of Rick Santorum. However, Huntsman is realizing that he cannot run only on an issue that is not at the forefront of voters’ minds. Throughout the debate, the favorite of moderate Republicans closely mirrored his fellow debaters in his proposals to stimulate the economy and was not less vehement in his criticism of Obama. The governor missed a chance to court independent voters, upon whom he must rely, by sticking to solidly conservative talking points. With his campaign openly betting everything on New Hampshire, where Romney leads by double digits, Huntsman will need nothing short of a miracle to get back in the running. He needed a legendary debate and only delivered a good one. Grade: B

Newt Gingrich: Gingrich was almost certainly the most lively and entertaining participant in the debate. Maybe not surprisingly, he also received the most applause. With such suggestions as “Barney Frank and Chris Dodd should go to jail,” it was hard to take the former Speaker of the House as anything more than comic relief. He pep- pered his allotted time with enthusiastic calls for the release of Fed documents and the removal of Ben Bernanke, as well as excoriations of Congress, calling them “idiots” and referring to the debt deal as “a choice between shooting ourselves in the head or cutting off our leg.” Though he got fewer questions than the top-tier candidates, he did not limit his brash enthusiasm to his own time, but jumped in rather regularly, after or while others were speaking, to comment once again on how incompetent the leadership in Washington really is. Though Gingrich has been seen as fighting very long odds ever since his campaign meltdown this summer (at one point it seemed he would drop out), second-tier candidates like Bachmann and Huntsman would do well to follow his attention-grabbing and pugnacious example. Grade: A-

Ron Paul: This was the candidate for whom the debate mattered least. Paul has a rabid core of Libertarian followers and does very well in straw polls and early fundraising, but he has never come close to actually building a dangerous campaign. Some had believed that this would finally be his cycle, but Paul has remained too committed to his fringe message to gain a spot near the head of the pack. The Texas congressman stayed mostly within his favorite stomping ground, reminding people that “when you have bubbles, they burst!” and advocating that the government pull out not only from the housing market, but also from currency manipulation in the form of the Federal Reserve. He went after Cain and the other candidates for not wanting a full audit of the Fed, but on the whole, he dealt with the few questions Moderator Charlie Rose asked him, and no more. Paul did not make a grand impression, but with ideas so set on him already, he didn’t have to. Grade: B

Rick Santorum: Like Rick Perry, Santorum needed this debate. He is treading water near the back of the pack and is not raising anywhere near the money that he needs to remain competitive with the likes of Romney and Perry. A strong voice of social conservatism, Santorum was also at the disadvantage of arguing on a platform he feels less comfortable with. He focused on bringing back manufacturing jobs to the U.S. by cutting corporate taxes and stressed his time growing up in a working-class mining town. Near the end of the debate, the Pennsylvanian seemed to get desperate: he first declared that he wanted to “start a trade war with China and win,” then tried to move back to more familiar territory, starting with, “I know this is an economics debate but…” as he explained why single-parent families and the breakdown of traditional social values was connected to unemployment. Unfortunately for him, though he had the passion, Santorum was not able to make any real strides at a time when he needed them. Grade: B-