Premiere GOP 2012 Debate

     Fox News and the South Carolina Republican Party teamed up last Thursday, May 5, for this election cycle's first GOP primary debate. Their rush to be the first debate resulted in a less than stellar cast of debaters, with Romney, Bachmann, Gingrich, and nearly every other big name skipping the event (apparently, even Boehner couldn't be bothered to watch). This first debate with candidates Ron Paul, Herman Cain, Tim Pawlenty, Rick Santorum, and Gary Johnson opened up no new issues, produced few interesting soundbites, and will likely have no impact on the outcome of the primaries. But, at least a couple of these candidates have a chance at nomination, so here's an overview of the debate, along with commentary on how each candidate fared.

     The subjects of the questions were about what you'd expect: the economy, foreign policy, a little bit of social values, etc. For the most part, each candidate sounded like a conservative republican, some more extreme than others, except for Gary Johnson. The former two-term governor of New Mexico, Gary Johnson stood out as easily the most centrist candidate on the stage. His Republican credentials come from the fact that he is a staunch believer in the free-market, saying that because of this he is absolutely opposed to all tariffs (in response to a question about Trump's idea to tax Chinese imports 25%). He also supports eliminating the corporate income tax (claiming that it is redundant) and the federal minimum wage.  It's his socially moderate views that likely won't mesh with the Republican primary electorate (that and nobody has ever heard of him). For instance, Johnson is pro-choice, though he made sure to explain that he supported late-term abortion bans, parental notification, and counseling. He also supports the legalization of marijuana and openly admits to having used it in the past. He has a peculiar stance on immigration reform compared to other republicans: Johnson wants to make it far easier for immigrants to enter the U.S. on work visas, and wants to allow a grace period for undocumented workers to obtain a work visa, but not citizenship. In a debate filled with applause breaks, Gary Johnson got few.

     Ron Paul's performance was typical: all of his answers could have been guessed in advance by anyone familiar with his principles. Paul will always vote for a tiny federal government, voting no on nearly all government spending, leaving most decisions up to the states, and ending foreign intervention. When asked if he would vote for federal tort reform, he said he wouldn't because tort law is a state matter; when asked about Israel, he said that Israel is too dependent on the U.S. and that we should end foreign aid to the state and all other nations; when asked about gay marriage, he said that the federal government should remove itself from marriage altogether and leave it to states and churches (he defended his vote in favor of the Defense of Marriage Act as one that protected states rights). All in all, Paul's participation in the debate could be summed up as follows:

Questioner: "You believe in a very small federal government, but what about this case?"

Paul: "Even in that case, I believe in a very small federal government."

Nothing new there.

     Herman Cain disguised his relative lack of ideas with specific-sounding-yet-actually-vague multi-step plans. His plan on lowering gas prices is to "demonstrate that we're serious" about pursuing energy independence which would cause lower oil speculation. He said that every foreign intervention must have a clear strategy before going in and an exit strategy. Though he failed to say anything out of the ordinary, he was surprisingly well-recieved. If Cain can sharpen his views and become more specific, he may go farther than expected.

     Rick Santorum views himself in this race as the warrior of social conservatism. Asked about Mitch Daniels call for a "truce on social issues" in order to focus on the economy, Santorum made a case that family values were integral to the structure of this nation, being careful to define a family as one with both a mother and a father. He was also asked to clarify a quote from his book "It Takes A Family" that accused "radical feminism" of making women feel that it is more "socially affirming to work outside the home than to give up their careers to take care of their children" (Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06244/718122-177.stm#ixzz1LtVw2Koy) He claimed to not support the choice to stay at home any more than the choice to work, but that he only intended to criticize society of preferring working mothers to home-makers. He was asked to clarify a couple of times, and got a little worked up over it (and other pushy questions). The crowd responded well to his family values, but his hard-line ideological views on the economy (Medicare vouchers immediately) and foreign policy (Pakistan is either with us or against us, though he didn't give any practical outcomes of this except "serious talk") makes him completely unelectable to the general public.

     And lastly, though certainly not least, is the one candidate on the stage that anybody believes has a shot at the nomination: Tim Pawlenty. Pawlenty did indeed sound the most presidential, but only because of his need to backtrack on some previous public views. His former public support for Romney's Massachusetts health care plan was explained as being a state matter. He also had to explain former support for cap-and-trade, which he simply said he regretted and no longer favors. He tried to position himself as being in the midst of current events, saying he was the first one to call for a no-fly-zone in Libya (on March 7) and that if it had been done then, Gaddafi would have fallen instead of digging in.


     The next GOP debate is scheduled for September 14 at the Reagan Library in California and will be sponsored by Politico and NBC. Their debate was scheduled to be the very first (May 2nd), but thought better of it given the lack of candidates officially in the race.