The Occasional Observer

1. First things first. Romney made the gaffe of the night. I won't venture a guess as to if it will be remembered as a small slip or will have longer term repercussions (but you know it's embarrassing--at a minimum--when Ron Paul tees off on you afterwards). Here's a video capturing the moment:



Justin Hart, one of the founders of MyManMitt.com, makes the point here that it was only a "gaffe" if willfully misinterpreted.

2. Fred's debut: as predicted, a whole bunch of headlines stating "he did what he needed to do." For instance, here, here, and most shamelessly, here. This is all based on "low bar" expectations, as plenty of commentators pointed out that he was shaky, boring, and forgettable. Fineman's story about the debate opened this way:

Fred Thompson stood a head taller than his fellow Republicans but he seemed in over his head as the CNBC debate began here. He wore the pained look of a man in need of a powerful digestive pill. But by the time the two-hour marathon ended, the new guy on the trail had gained just barely enough confidence, composure and credibility to make it to the next round of the GOP food fight.

Fantastic. Gained "just enough confidence" that he wasn't a total embarrassment and made "the next round." Wow. If Mitt, Rudy or McCain (candidates that worry MSM liberals) had performed like this, they'd be screaming he should pack it in now.

3. Just like the low bar helped Fred, the high bar hurt Huckabee. Take this quote, for example:

Mike Huckabee: He fell victim to his previous performances today. Huckabee has been so consistently good you know find yourself waiting for him to utter some knockout joke or soliloquy every time he opens his mouth. It was a good performance - and would have been more than good for many others on the stage - but I don't think Huckabee made any strides in shoring up the support of fiscal conservatives today.

So other candidates would love to be as good as Huck was, so he did a bad job. Thanks for clarifying.

4. The free trade/fair trade discussion was one of the more interesting rounds. Opinions ran the gamut from Rudy (Hawley-Smoot! Smoot-Hawley!) to Hunter (attacking Fred for supporting MFN status for China). Huck showed up vociferously on the fair trade side of the equation, McCain on the free trade side, and Mitt was in the middle.

Here's part of the trade discussion, discussing the continuing destruction of our manufacturing base:



And another, referencing the NASDAQ acquisition by a Dubai firm:



5. McCain wasn't able to follow up on his rousing success in the last debate in NH. I felt like he's a little out of his element discussing economic issues, and is much more comfortable on national security and government reform, where he kept trying to steer the conversation.

6. Hunter had a really strong performance. He's clear and on point. He answers the questions. And he seems to be making no progress.

7. Tancredo and Brownback need to drop out now and end the madness.

8. Apparently (I missed this part), Paul and Tancredo both threatened to go 3rd party if their primary issues (non-interventionist foreign policy and anti-illegal immigration, respectively) aren't co opted by the eventual GOP. Paul would probably appeal to as many Dems as Republicans, but a Tancredo 3rd party bid would be disastrous. Again, from the Fineman article:

The real news of the night – in terms of the general election campaign – was buried at the end. Representatives Ron Paul and Tom Tancredo both made it clear that they might not support the GOP presidential nominee. Get ready for a third, or fourth party candidacy: one against the war (perhaps teaming up with a Democrat), the other against illegal immigration. The former would hurt the Democrats, the latter the GOP.