GOP Debate Doings

I did not watch the Republican debate last night. I attribute this to the fact that there have already been several debates, that I pretty much know the bullshit each Republican will spout and that if the debate wasn't important enough for 'Ol Fred Thomspon attend, then it wasn't important enough for me to watch. I was going to be snarky and say I missed the debate because I have a life, but I'm married with kids, so no one would really buy that, would they?

The morning after, I am surprised by the near unanimity of opinion - McCain won, Huckabee had a strong showing, and Romney didn't fare well. Here's the view of from the right-wing media forum, Human Events.

McCain was certainly the pleasant surprise of the evening. Just when his political obituary has been written he turns in a good natured, sober and informed performance. On foreign policy he essentially put Governor Mitt Romney in his place -- telling him the surge was working, not just apparently so” -- giving the most authoritative answer on Iran of the contenders. His problems however are clear -- with each moment spent on rehashing the immigration debate he loses votes and momentum and his refusal to sign the tax pledge and “stand on his record” reminds voters he opposed the Bush tax cuts. But on this night viewers could be gratified he is in the Senate and in the race for he raises the level of debate and reminds voters of the benefits of experience.

Romney’s performance raised two key question marks for his candidacy: he lacks a personal touch and is shaky on foreign policy. As to the first, when the military dad in the diner asked for an apology from Romney for comparing his son’s work on the campaign to his own son’s service Romney not only failed to offer his apology but seemed indifferent to the questioner. We like smart presidents but we also like empathetic ones who relate to people as people and Romney needs to show he has a heart and not just a brain. As for foreign policy, the week before the great surge debate, he seemed oddly focused on the Democrats’ goal --how quickly to get out -- without the same dogged concern shown by McCain for getting it “right” -- as best we can -- before we leave. Romney has been on quite a roll in the polls lately but he did not help himself in this outing.

One other item really caught my eye. Ross Douthat, over at The Atlantic, takes his conservative brethren to task for being more interested in attacks than substance. He noted some folks took Sam Brownback to task for not hitting Ron Paul on his plan to leave Iraq. Instead, Brownback, gasp, gave an actual plan (a "soft Partition") on Iraq, rather than just giving the usual Patriotic rhetoric and parroting the Bush talking points.

Look, I get where they're coming from: It's good when the candidates mix it up and actually address what one another are saying, and Brownback generally seems lost in the crowd during these debates, and from a tactical perspective he ought to be throwing more punches. (Or getting out of the race entirely.) But - but - what Brownback did, in his non-response to Paul, was offer an actual strategy for moving forward politically in Iraq, addressing the central problem of our occupation head-on in a way that almost nobody else did during tonight's debate. His plan for partition may be a terrible plan (or at best, a plausible endpoint of a "stay till it burns out" strategy), but it's an infinitely more substantive contribution to the argument over Iraq than, say, Rudy Giuliani's famous slam of Paul a few months back, and Brownback deserved better - as do we all - than to have his response scored a failure because he didn't use it to score cheap points against a fellow also-ran.

Ross ought to save his breath - conservatives are far more interested in scoring cheap political points than they are in finding actual solutions. But I admire his efforts.