-
John Kerry, Secretary of Gaffes
April 25, 2013 | 9 comments
-
Rand Paul and Marco Rubio at CPAC
March 14, 2013 | 0 comments
-
SEQUESTER: The Dumbest Weight-Loss Plan Ever
March 1, 2013 | 0 comments
-
Israel’s Hard-Right Turn That Wasn’t
January 22, 2013 | 1 comment
-
Deep Space Nine, Twenty Years Later
January 3, 2013 | 23 comments
The Spectacle Blog
This was a bad night for Tim Pawlenty, who looked weak when John King pressed him to double down on his “Obamneycare” attack, and he waffled instead. If you’re going to go with a don’t-attack-first strategy, stick to it; if you’re going to attack, own the attack. Using a cutting line on Meet the Press one day and then wussing out on it the next day is a losing play. It was a good night for Mitt Romney, who won that exchange and generally looked like the frontrunner.
It was also a good night for Michele Bachmann, who confounded the off-key media narrative that has portrayed her as a sort of cut-rate Sarah Palin. In fact, other than being conservative women with a lot of Tea Party fans, Bachmann and Palin are quite different, and one of the differences is that Bachmann, the occassional gaffe notwithstanding, is a stronger extemporaneous speaker.
I concur with Joe that this wasn’t a great night for Herman Cain, who certainly didn’t shine the way he did in the South Carolina debate last month, when Romney and Bachmann were absent. But I’ll dissent a bit from the assertion that he was “the biggest loser”; Pawlenty’s performance was more disappointing.
I would caution, though, that we shouldn’t forget how early we are in the race. It’s not only the case that more candidates may get in; it’s also the case that Pawlenty might learn from his mistakes tonight. So might Cain, for that matter. Remember that there were periods in 2003 and 2007 where John Kerry and John McCain, respectively, looked like they’d blown their shot at winning their nominations. We’re in the early minutes of a long game.
View all comments (23) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by John Tabin
http://spectator.org/blog/2011/06/13/on-tonights-debate
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Bob Grant| 6.13.11 @ 11:18PM
I agree that Bachmann is a thinking woman's Sarah Palin.
Nobama| 6.13.11 @ 11:55PM
Oh please. Bachmann as the nominee is a non-starter. She's Pawlenty in a pantsuit ... says a lot of the right things but just doesn't have that zing. She doesn't have the right kind of charisma to be at the top of the ticket, but she'd be a solid running mate for someone like Palin.
darcy| 6.14.11 @ 5:07PM
What a laugh: Bachmann "doesn't have the right kind of charisma . . . " She's a far superior candidate than Palin, intellectually, in speaking abilities and with far greater conservative heft. Palin is the populist candidate, shrill, but with spunk. Just remember, Obama has charisma, and he's a skunk of the first order. (My excuses to our wild skunks in the forest.)
Gold BC| 6.14.11 @ 12:45AM
It was apparent that 6 0f 7 tonight's debaters were rehearsing for the veep spot ceding the nomination to Romney. Republicans have a queer habit of nominating previous losers and Romney is as queer as the come, no pun intended.
Dan| 6.14.11 @ 12:56AM
You are stretching the point to the breaking point by reaching for a "loser" of the evening. There weren't any.
Did Pawlenty forego an opportunity to hammer Romney? Perhaps.
But Pawlenty is trying to make potential voters comfortable with him, and launching a blistering attack on Romeny out of the gate, with so many voters heretofore unfamiliar with him, would be unwise. They'll be plenty of time to eviscerate Romeny's positions. And it didn't need to happen tonight.
We've not crossed midsummer's eve yet, so there's no reason to go all hammer and anvil on your opponents.
Some need to let the viewers get used to them, get accustomed to thinking of them as "presidential."
All did well.
Cain didn't have as much of an opportunity, but then again, he's already something of a known commodity, isn't he. He's all "identifying the problem," "bringing in experts," etc.... That's already gotten old.
Santorum is out there trying to muffle a perception that he's too abrasive. Bachman trying to calm concerns that she's too much the firebrand. Pawlenty is STILL trying to get people to know him. Romney is known, and he's trying to get people to overlook previous positions.
Paul isn't worth the while because he's not going anywhere, but he's mildly interesting.
Occam's Tool| 6.14.11 @ 1:06AM
Gotta go with BTO.
snodgrass| 6.14.11 @ 1:44AM
Can someone explain why they are even bothering to do this? Now in mid June? And how many people watched? Wanna bet only media types, bloggers, and political campaign addicts? Ah, ya, ya, keep feeding the media twerps.
Boy, sitting politicians (those in office) must love this. One more sideshow to help divert from their clowning around.
Different format: No liberal media types allowed. Just a round table discussion where each of them can bash and critique (in any fashion they wish) the 30 months that Obama has been at the helm.
All the foreign policy topics? Why? None have any experience in this area and I'm not sure that any is needed. Keep the focus on jobs, government growth, overregulation, overtaxation, lousy education results, crime, national natural resources, border security.
Heck, get them to discuss the faults (or merits? No!) of the government taking Boeing to task for wanting to build and construct in South Carolina.
Isn't that enough? What it isn't sexy enough without having to hear these idiots act like they know what they'd do internationally?
The foreing policy parts of these are always the fantasy hot air sequences.
Ryan| 6.14.11 @ 9:01AM
Wang Chung.
Wayne | 6.14.11 @ 11:51AM
Ka Ching
dadfly| 6.14.11 @ 2:12AM
right...the gaffes were flying fast and furious. now who was it who "will hand Afghanistan over to the Taliban government." boy, it sure quacked like an AGW alarmist, romneycare snake oil salesman.
Ryan| 6.14.11 @ 9:00AM
So's your mother.
vb| 6.14.11 @ 7:01AM
snodgrass,
Perhaps none of the candidates have personal experience in foreign policy, but I would like to know how they are preparing themselves. If we elect somebody perceived as an amateur, we will be tested very shortly after the inauguration. Tough talk isn't enough. We need someone clever enough to conduct foreign policy without the cameras and to give coherent instructions to our diplomats. This is the area in which Congress has the least power to constrain the President until after the fact.
johnd| 6.14.11 @ 8:37AM
The ONE Republican in the country crazy enough and experienced enough to actually cut back the monster Fed Gov. was not allowed on the stage.
Gary Johnson. We deserve our sorry fate.
Mike| 6.14.11 @ 9:34AM
The herd mentality of the media, pretty much across the political spectrum, seems to be thAt there were two winners in last night's debate - Romney and Bachmann. I disagree. I think there was only one: Bachmann. Cain is a one trick pony ; he is a businessman. But he has no experience in the political area and is not convincing that would operate successfully in that area. Romney and Pawlenty have operated in that arena and, since politics is about compromise, they have records that make them vulnerable to party purists. Ron Paul came across as the beloved but slightly nutty uncle. Newt is DOA and I suspect that even he knows it. Santorum has defined artificiality to a level beyond that of Romney. Bachmann: Palin's star power coupled with mental acuity and information.
Grzmlyk| 6.14.11 @ 9:42AM
I'll say this: Now I know why I watch Fox News and not CNN. Horrible moderator (what was up with the Tourette Syndrome-like "uhs" interjected at every single pause a speaker made after 10 seconds? Unbelieveable - was this a planned strategy?????). Horrible format, horrible, frivolous "this or that" questions, horrible optics.
That said, I don't know - I like Bachmann very much, but I was a little disappointed in her. Some say she was very polished, and, while I thought her content was ok (but not scintillating), I think she was somewhat stilted and over-rehearsed looking. I also disagree with many who said she appeared confident - I though she was a bit tentative; I'd like to see her have some of Romney's poise. I think she's got it in her to appear more natural and animated. I'd like to see it. Even so, she's a real conservative, and I think she'd would be a fine president.
Pawlenty just seemed feckless, and I agree that he should have owned the "Obnomneycare" line. We need boldness, not timidity, which is what Pawlenty showed. And anyone who once thought cap-and-trade worrys me: Once a RINO, always a RINO.
Cain, sadly, did not impress me this time. He seems to have confidence, but not enough grasp of the specific issues. You can only say you have to know what the problem is for so long - eventually you have to state the problem itself, and how you'd solve it.
Romney, the preordained nominee, looked breezy and oh-so comfortable, but if he's a conservative, I'm a Rockefeller. And, I'm sorry, Romneycare is an albatross that he deserves never to be rid of. Also, his embrace of the global warming hoax. Just what we do NOT need in 2012: Democrat Lite.
Gingrich has long since revealed himself as a one-trick pony who's facile on "ideas," but there is absolutely no "there" there. I wouldn't trust him to run a boy scout troop meeting. Like Pawlenty and Romney, I do not believe Gingrich is a conservative. He's an opportunist.
I kinda like Santorum, but he looks like an angry dog all the time - message to Rick: Stop bearing your teeth and looking like you've just about had it with everyone who isn't you. You look like you're about one minute away from going home and getting an AK-47 and going postal on people.
Ron Paul - sad; I really like a lot of what he says about domestic policy - I think he's right on the money. But I just don't take him seriously when it comes to foreign policy, and I think he's a lone wolf - I can't picture him assembling a team.
Of course, any of these folks would be a damned site better than the traitor in chief.
However, what we need is a friggin miracle, and what we have are human beings. We need the strongest conservative in the bunch, and, of the folks last night, I'd go with Bachmann as the best performer who is not a poser - last night.
somnolence| 6.14.11 @ 10:33AM
I beg to differ on the opinion about Santorum "baring his teeth." I believe that the candidate DOES need to express that in large doses this time around. Please, no more Mr. Smooths or Mr. or Mrs. Rogers acolytes. The country is in crisis mode, and we don't need another Bush or McCain nice approach, unless we haven't already learned a thing or two. Pawlenty failed on this account royally, last night by not seizing on his "Obamneycare" assertions, which possibly would have rattled Mitt. Bye, Tim.
Grzmlyk| 6.14.11 @ 10:58AM
So the only alternative to showing anger is being "Mr. Smooth" or a "Mr. Rogers acolyte?" I don't think so.
To me, there's a very offputting quality to Santorum, and I'd never noticed it until the first debate - and I liked his performance overall nonetheless, attributing the teeth-baring to nerves or just the need for more seasoning.
But it was in full evidence again last night, and this time it seemed like a constant, grinding hostility that underscored his every utterance.
I think you can express passion, confidence and conviction - even outrage at where this country is headed - without expressing anger - and he literally had his teeth bared.
In my opinion, that is NOT a good thing; it ain't gonna go over well with people. One thing we need in a president is a reassuring confidence and an unshakeable optimism (and, given the trajectory of this country, it's going to have to be unshakeable).
I don't want Mr. Smooth or Mr. Rogers, but I also don't want Mr. Hyde or Captain Queeg, either.