Thompson Winner Of Flawed Des Moines Register GOP Debate

On paper, Wednesday’s Republican presidential debate at the Iowa Public Television studios in Johnston should have been the most influential of the campaign cycle. It was the last debate before the January 3 caucuses and came at a time when several legitimate questions have been posed about front-runner Mike Huckabee’s policies during his time as governor of Arkansas. And despite the fact that Huckabee holds a double-digit lead in most polls of Iowa voters, the election is still up for grabs and most voters say their support of any one candidate isn’t set in stone.

But the debate was a train wreck, difficult for even the most ardent political junkie to watch. What seemed like a good idea on paper – avoiding over-discussed, politically charged topics about Iraq and immigration reform and forcing candidates to keep their answers succinct – actually made me yearn for a surreal surprise a la the YouTube debates. (Register political columnist David Yepsen dressed as a snowman asking about global warming?)

Moderator Carolyn Washburn, editor of The Register, was determined to hold the politicians to a 30-second time limit for their answers. Do we really want a presidential with a fiscal policy that can be explained in 30 seconds?  Even a tightly written editorial in The Register on something as banal as, say, taxing pumpkins as food during Halloween, couldn’t be read aloud in 30 seconds, let alone one of the paper’s carefully researched editorials on more complex topics.

What next, a bumper-sticker debate?

And what good does it do to exclude discussion about immigration reform and the national security? Most Iowa voters list those issues as the most important of the election. It’s the prerogative of debate organizers to establish any ground rules they deem fitting. But avoiding issues that voters care most about seems a bit elitist. More about the flawed format a little bit later. First, let’s look at the winners and losers:

Nobody knocked off Huckabee, mostly because the constrictive format of the debate didn’t really allow for much give-and-take between candidates. For the first time in several weeks, he wasn’t the clear winner of the debate, not because his performance was any weaker than it has been in the past but because other candidates finally rose to the occasion.

Fred Thompson is the only candidate who could see his polling numbers improve in Iowa because of his performance in the debate.

Thompson gave his best performance of the campaign cycle, the kind of showing that many people expected when he entered the race last summer but haven’t seen. He was funny, thoughtful, inspiring and forceful. And for the first time he actually reminded voters that he’d really like their support in this election. (It was Tip O’Neill who was fond of reminding young House Democrats who were seeking re-election for the first time that “people like to be asked.”) Such is the case in Iowa, too.

Perhaps his best moment was when he told Washburn that he wouldn’t play games after she asked the candidates for a show of hands on global warming. When he asked for a minute to explain himself, she refused. So he said he wouldn’t answer the question.

He also had a good line in a brief exchange with Romney and an allusion to his wealth. Thompson said, in a response to a question about taxes: “My goal is to get into the position Mitt Romney’s in, where I don’t have to worry about taxes.”

Romney laughed and then said, “My goal is to get into your position.”

Thompson’s retort: “You’re getting to be a pretty good actor.”

Thompson also exhibited signs that he’d be a strong negotiator in international affairs. “When the enemies of this country are at the negotiating table, who do you want representing you? Whoever that guy is, that’s the guy you ought to vote for for President.”

Huckabee and his staff have to be pleased with the debate, too, since he escaped unscathed. Part of that was the format, that didn’t allow any interaction among the candidates. Huckabee wasn’t asked about his pardons in Arkansas or about his lack of experience — and alleged lack of knowledge — in foreign affairs. And he continues to come across as likable and sincere, two qualities we Americans seem to cherish in a presidential candidate.

Romney has also turned in consistently solid performances in previous debates, and Wednesday’s event was no exception. In some ways, Romney is the perfect candidate for this sound-bite generation, with a strong ability to sound substantive in 30 seconds or less. He seemed positive and upbeat with fresh ideas about education and immigration reform.

And if you believe that Paul is peaking at the right time, then you might point to his debate performance on Wednesday as evidence of his maturation as a candidate. How do I put this delicately enough to avoid the wrath of his Internet army? Um, he came across as fairly sane.

There are tens of thousands of Paul supporters who will disagree, but to Average Joes like me some of the issues that the Texas congressman has embraced just don’t seem to resonate. On Wednesday, he didn’t get bogged down with discussion about the Federal Reserve, international law and the like and came across as a well-educated, practical conservative.

For John McCain and Rudy Giuliani, the debate was mostly a wash. They weren’t particularly hurt by their performances but didn’t shine in a way to win a lot of new voters. Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter were ineffective, but were also unharmed by the debate, if a candidate with one percent support in the state can be harmed. <br>
And then there was Keyes.

The former ambassador obviously holds a lot of passion when it comes to his desire to change the political culture in Washington. But there were times during the debate on Wednesday when I wondered whether security should be called to remove him from the stage. Some Iowans who question The Register’s political leanings and disagree with its left-leaning editorial page might have quietly cheered while Keyes butted heads with Washburn. But it didn’t make him look presidential, just stubborn.

The inclusion of Keyes in Wednesday’s event was one of many curiosities of the debate. Although Keyes, a perennial presidential candidate, declared his candidacy earlier this year, his participation in the campaign process has been almost non-existent. Still, he was allowed to share the stage with eight other candidates, some who actually stand a chance of winning in January.

Perhaps the most troublesome aspect of the debate was the lack of give-and-take between candidates, which left many claims unchallenged. Factcheck.org, a non-partisan organization that has been monitoring claims made by candidates during the campaign, pointed to a series of assertions that don’t pass the smell test. A more flexible debate format would have likely helped the typical voter see the dubious nature of some of these claims.