Blog Credo

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H.L. Mencken

Tuesday, September 13, 2011

Another Debate, But About What?

Been there, done that.

So, we had another vapid beauty pageant last night.

No, not the Miss Universe contest, the GOP debate.

First off, at some point you have to winnow the field.  A debate with Bachmann, Perry and Romney would be much more interesting than one that features any utterances from Rick Santorum.  You can throw Ron Paul in there for contrast, I guess.

The real debate ultimately is about Rick Perry.  And by debate, I don't mean what happened last night but what happened afterwards: the pundit dissection.

We should know by now that A) pundits usually read debates poorly and B) they can alter the narrative of the debate ex post facto.  Al Gore won all the snap polls in 2000, but soon we were inundated by stories about him sighing and rolling his eyes.  We were told that McCain did a great job against Obama in their first debate, but Obama got the poll numbers from actual normal people.

So it is with last night debates.  Josh Marshall and others say that Perry got creamed by Bachmann and Romney.  Again, I don't think policy positions matter to GOP primary voters as much as Marshall thinks they do.  Calling Social Security a ponzi scheme WORKS for Perry.

I think Perry has to worry more about Bachmann's attack on him about Gardisil.  The fact that Perry - whatever his motives - wanted to protect young women from cervical cancer could be really damaging in today's GOP.  It suggests he believes in science or that people are having sex before marriage.  The horror.

The Perry-Bachmann dynamic is the one to watch, because that's where the votes are.  Some have said that Perry's debate performance is just glib generalities and homilies.  I'm sorry, but when have they been anything BUT that?

Right now, we're stuck in this horrific limbo between the start of the campaign and actual voting, filled with the worst sort of punditry and predicting.  Iowa will actually tell us a lot, because if Perry beats Bachmann in Iowa, then he's the nominee.

But we do have to worry about scandals and unforced errors that could undermine the Perry juggernaut.

Because Marshall and others are correct that what Perry is saying now would render him unelectable in 2012.

UPDATE: As per usual, Booman says it better:

As I said last night, I don't feel qualified to judge who won the CNN/Tea Party debate. I am not crazy. Dana Milbank, however, is convinced that Rick Perry was the loser. Maybe. But I thought he did just fine. I thought he made Romney look like a wimp. And the rest of the field appeared to be little different from a swarm of gnats. Even Bachmann's attacks were less than devastating. Her premise was that Governor Perry forced girls to be immunized against HPV. But, as Perry made clear, there was a parental waiver so no one was forced to take the vaccine. She was outraged about something that isn't even true. Yet, that's kind of why I can't judge these debates. The whole show is 95% outrage about stuff that isn't true. If the audience is buying into what they're saying about Social Security or taxes or balancing the budget or climate change or why health care is expensive, then it's really not a competition to show you understand the issues and have credible plans to address them. It's more about conveying some kind of emotional message and connecting with the voters on a visceral level.


That's why it matters that Romney, like Pawlenty, exudes wimpishness. It matters that Huntsman lacks stature. And it matters that Perry projects confidence and raw strength. What they're saying is probably irrelevant.
(snip)

Because it wasn't even the craziest thing that he said last night and no one seems to be listening to the details anyway. Paul also said that we should leave the uninsured to die. Newt Gingrich said we can balance the budget without touching entitlements by just "modernizing" the government. Bachmann thought it was an outrage to prevent cervical cancer and didn't seem to realize that the Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution. Santorum tried to appeal to Latino voters by calling them the 'Illegal Vote." Romney tried to appeal to the Latino vote by saying they all came here looking for a hand-out. Herman Cain said he would create a commission of people who had been abused by the Environmental Protection Agency in order to assure the destruction of the Environmental Protection Agency. And I'm just scratching the surface here.

This isn't about reason or logic. That might play in a Democratic debate or in a general election debate, but it's meaningless in a debate among Republicans. In my book, Perry was the winner because he didn't cry. Romney is too wimpy, geeky, and bland. All the other candidates are midgets.

But, as I've said, I'm not a good judge.

No comments: