This was just as good, maybe even better, than the round table debate. The video is here. There's just something about the candidates sitting at a table that both lends itself to a more relaxed atmosphere, yet makes the whole event seem more 'businesslike', rather than sterile and 'debatelike'.
Like the last two debates, no bombs or barbs were hurled, and, much like the Cain-Gingrich confab, it was usually left to the participants to decide who answered what. More specifically, the moderator might ask the question of a specific candidate to get the ball rolling, then it was left to the group if anyone wanted to pipe up after that. It was cool, calm and collected.
There's a point to be made right from the start. This was a forum about morals and values, which actually is the definition of 'political party', in the sense that pragmatic and scientific issues such as defense spending, immigration and global warming have no business, whatsoever, being aligned with one political party or the other. The parties are supposed to be about moral issues like abortion and capital punishment; things that define a human being. How carbon dioxide reacts in the atmosphere is not something that defines a human being.
This does, however, work to our benefit, because there are many people out there who might identify with the Democrats on moral issues, but not buy into the AGW hoax and think we ought to drill, baby, drill in ANWR and immediately start building a hundred nuclear power plants. So they end up being Independents simply because they have nowhere else to turn. And Independents usually study the facts and know some history and, in theory, will be able to deduce that keeping a socialist in the White House for another four years is perhaps not the best of ideas.
So this debate was a little more important than how it might appear at first glance. This is the one that goes to the core.
What made it truly interesting was that they didn't differ on how they felt about the issues, just on how they'd solve the problem. The best example would be abortion. Newt suggested merely redefining the term 'person' as written in the 14th Amendment to specifically note that 'person' begins at conception. That immediately negates Roe vs. Wade and every state law passed since.
Paul, however, wanted to actually amend the Constitution with an entire amendment spelling it out, and others had their own ideas. But, again, none of them argued against the immorality of abortion-on-demand, just how to fight it.
This first clip holds a couple of gems, including the first big applause of the event. If you saw a headline recently referring to Newt telling the OWSers to "go get a job", this was that moment, and Cain is terrific in his response.
One place where CitizenLink.com, the host, really blew it was in telling the candidates to "dress like you were going to church." Bachmann and Santorum took them for their word, with Michele dressed in a simple brown dress and Rick in a casual sports jacket
sans tie. The rest of the gang looked like they were ready to shoot a
Gentleman's Quarterly ad. So that was a little unfair to Bachmann and Santorum and I imagine their managers had something to say about it to the good folk at CitizenLink afterward.
This next clip also has a couple of choice nuggets. First, this is perhaps the first time a candidate has directly asked the audience a question, and it displays the flip side of
Mr. Big Picture and demonstrates how he's as focused on the small stuff as he is the grand. Note how the question refers to any
specific instances they'd change if they were in the White House, and after Michele has a go, watch Gingrich zero in on one single asswipe judge.
As the term "traditional family values" was spoken over and over again, I couldn't help but wonder what was going through the minds of Ann Coulter, author and professional talking head; John Hawkins, owner of Right Wing News; Roger Simon, headline star at PJ Media; and God's Critic, aka AllahPundit, main co-blogger on Hot Air, who were the main driving force behind getting the Conservative Political Action Conference, perhaps the big event of the year, to drop the Christian groups who had sponsored it in the past and demand they be replaced by GOProud, a gay political action group, thereby removing the "traditional" part of traditional family values.
My guess is, as soon as they saw the subject was 'family values', they didn't even bother watching it.
Anarchy reigns! Again, the disrespectful, unruly crowd failed to abide by the moderator's fervent plea. In this case, "If everyone could stay seated (gesturing to audience), we will take a five-minute break." And just watch how these scofflaws respond!
I can't decide if it's a good debate tactic or not, but Santorum is the only one who continually distances himself from the pack by saying, "Unlike everyone else here, I've done something about (or "had experience in") blah blah blah.", and I wouldn't be surprised to hear he's said it in every single debate so far. It's annoying and sounds egotistical, but, by the same token, (1) it might be an effective tactic with the public, and (2) especially if it's true.
The Tea Party speaks. This is what I and my fellow Tea Partiers endlessly preached in the run-up to the 2010 election, and is even more true today.
No one will listen, though. The right-wing bloggers will continue to make it a Republican vs. Democrat issue, just like they did in 2010. The problem is, I could write another heartfelt screed on why they should step above this us-vs-them paradigm and force them to read it, but it isn't often you can change mindset with mere dissertation.
Finally, in a no-doubt vain effort to dispel the heinous rumor that Dr. Mercury is completely cruel and heartless, especially after the cruel, heartless way I went after Perry after he cruelly and heartlessly attacked Social Security (I figured we were all even at that point), we'll finish up this post on a sweet note.
Mitt, who wasn't there, just lost 13% of the Grandmother Vote.
