Televised political debates have become a full contact sporting and entertainment event, part Fear Factor, part ultimate fighting, part Family Feud. I leave out the oft-used comparison to professional wrestling—not because the choreography of WWE fails to make the analogy stick, but because of the blood. Inside the rope ring of pro wrestling the blood is usually fake.
The presidential debate has travelled far in contemporary times. Imagine John F. Kennedy or Richard Nixon facing boos and catcalls from the audience for saying “politics is a team sport.”
With Rick Santorum’s surge now static both in Michigan and nationally among Republicans, and with Mitt Romney still stuck at his ceiling of support, the stakes seem excruciatingly high—and more so for the reporters, editors, producers and analysts for whom combative excitement and odds-making uncertainty make for good ratings. To quote Gene Wilder as Willie Wonka, “the suspense is unbearable…I hope it lasts.”
So when CNN decided on Wednesday night in Mesa, Arizona, to allow the four GOP candidates to sit in executive swivel chairs at a glass and chrome table, rather than stand, it seemed for a few minutes that decorum and civility and the Eleventh Commandment might have another shining moment on the stage. It was not be.
No candidate seems particularly presidential when having to explain the pragmatic decisions of the past and the infidelity and injury that those actions portend to the ideological purists in the room. These exchanges have damaged other candidates in the recent past, from Rick Perry to Newt Gingrich. So it was for both Romney and Santorum, now locked in when appears to be a mostly two-man fight and each engaged in a savage mincing and dicing of their opponents past political indiscretions.
Santorum took the worst of the heat in Wednesday’s debate, though Romney fared only slightly better.
The first question came from a member of the audience, and it was simple: what would each of these candidates do as President to bring the U.S. debt under control.
Santorum had the first opportunity, and he wasted no time in declaring that Obama Care would be the first target of his budget cutting, and the former Senator drew heavy applause from the partisans in the hall. Santorum also pointed to the enormous rise in entitlement spending, which now takes up over 60% of the federal budget, whereas, at the time of Santorum’s birth it was defense spending which took up that same share of the budget. Santorum said that cuts in defense spending, therefore, are not the solution, a jab perhaps at Ron Paul and his plan to immediately cut military spending.
Santorum said that the big ticket entitlement programs like Medicaid and Food Stamps should be fair game for scrutiny and overhaul along the lines of Welfare Reform, a plan which reallocated money and control back to the individual states. Santorum’s answer gained steam and strength, and may have been his best performance of the night.
CNN moderator John King then tosses the question to Romney, who had been critical of Santorum’s fiscal credentials during the previous weeks of campaigning. Romney said that the criticisms have been based on Santorum’s “historic record,” which includes votes to raise the debt ceiling on five occasions. Romney then said that the key is a balanced budget, and cited his own performance as governor of Massachusetts. Romney also said that as president he would “go through every single program, and ask whether we can afford it, and if not, is it so critical to us that we will borrow money from China to pay for it.” Romney also said that some successful government programs can be sent back to the states as block grants, where the services and work can be achieved more economically.
Romney also scored early applause with his proposal that the pay of government employees should be in keeping with the pay of the people paying the taxes.
The line of questioning led directly to the subject of Santorum’s vote on No Child Left Behind (which Santorum himself brought up, a clear case of not declaring your innocence if no one has accused you of a crime).
When King rolled the question over to Newt Gingrich by alluding to the notion that during his tenure as Speaker, earmarks were raised to the level of an art form, Gingrich again touted his most cherished achievement: multiple years of a balanced budget. But Gingrich said that the real issue is jobs and economic growth—no budget can be balanced on the backs of a taxpayer base of the unemployed or underemployed.
Gingrich also cited the need to overall and possibly replace the centuries-old Civil Service framework with “a modern management system,” which he estimated would save “a minimum of 500 billion a year.”
When CNN moderator John King turned the issue of fiscal conservatism toward Ron Paul’s negative ads being run in Michigan labeling Santorum “a fake,” Paul was unapologetic. “I find it fascinating,” Pail said, “that when people are running for office they are fiscally conservative, but when they are in office they do something different.” Paul when on to use Santorum’s support of—and then criticism of—the No Child Left Behind Act as an example of why politicians lose credibility over time.
Santorum defended himself by citing a variety of interest group ratings which show him to be a reliable fiscal conservative as compared to other members of Congress, and, to boot, someone able to maintain that standard even in a general liberal state. But Paul wasn’t taking that bait. Paul quipped that it doesn’t much matter to compare oneself to other members of a Congress so widely distrusted by the American public. Further, Paul said, some conservatives want to spend money also, especially as it relates to defense and foreign spending.
Gingrich offered that a modernization of the government will bring about immediate improvement, and banish in part a failure of will to tackle genuine problems, such as border security and energy exploration.
King then quoted Santorum as saying that “there are bad earmarks and good earmarks.” Citing the back-and-forth accusations about earmarks in some of the campaign ads and speeches, Santorum used the example of Romney’s request for financial support for security at the Olympics through the use of earmarks.
This brought about some of the most memorable exchanges after Rick Santorum gave a protracted and complicated defense of his use of earmarks while he served in the U.S. Senate. Defending his role in the process, Santorum said that earmarks—as they stand now—can still be used as a tool to mitigate bad decisions by presidents. Santorum used several examples, including through defense spending on specific projects which might be opposed by a defense secretary or a president.
“Congress has a role of allocating resources when they think the president has it wrong,” Santorum said, adding a long and perhaps grammatically convoluted explanation of the rights and wrongs of the process at the time. Romney waited patiently then pounced, but seemed to stumble eventually himself.
“I didn’t follow all of that,” Romney said, “but I can tell you this: I would put a ban on earmarks. I think it opens the door to excessive spending, spending on projects that don’t need to be done.” Romney seemed resolute with his momentary occupation of the conservative high ground. But then, after bashing Santorum for his support of “the bridge to nowhere,” Romney went further. “The earmark process is broken, there are thousands and thousands of earmarks and money is being used inappropriately.”
Romney then defended his own role as head of the Olympics when he went to Congress to ask for funds, saying “that’s the nature of what it is to lead an organization or a state…you come to Congress and you say these are things we need.” Romney cited examples of past Olympic support from the Feds, including transportation and security. “While I was fighting to save the Olympics, you were fighting to save the bridge to nowhere.”
Santorum said that the process which Governor Romney had just described in his example was in fact the very way the process had worked in the past and still works now. Romney, wanting to make a clear distinction of his fiscal view, disagreed.
“The six thousand earmarks,” Romney said, turning to gesture agreeably to Gingrich, “that were put in place under the Speaker’s term, for instance, were often tagged onto to other bills…” And at this point the booing and hissing rose louder. Romney, perhaps unintentionally, had now brought Gingrich into the fray. “I’m sorry, I don’t mean to be critical,” Romney said, “but that was the process. We’ve had thousands and thousands of earmarks over the years.”
Santorum said that although Romney was entitled to his opinion, he had the facts wrong, adding “you don’t know what you’re talking about.” Despite still more boos and heckles, Santorum then launched into another, even longer explanation of the process of how projects get stapled onto larger bills in Congress.
Despite the fact that Romney and Santorum seemed ultimately to agree on the notion of a line-item veto, the current dismal complexity of House and Senate methodologies, and their own attempts to win this round of pin-the-tail on the donkey made the discussion perhaps incomprehensible to many viewers, and only served to annoy the ideological purists in the room who see Washington as an out-of-control mechanism for spending tax dollars.
Gingrich, finally getting his turn to respond, said that the issue of earmarks—pro or con—is an easy way for Republicans to get into trouble. “If you have Barack Obama as President, and you have Republicans in the House, you may want the House imposing certain things on the President.” Gingrich used the example of the state of Georgia asking for funds for the Atlanta Olympics, saying that the process was proper and reliable, and a powerful tool for Congress to use to bypass a president on certain issues. Gingrich also made the point that Romney’s use of earmarks in the past made it unfair of him to attack Santorum for the same device.
Finally, Ron Paul was given a chance to weigh in. Dr. Paul’s answer, predictably perhaps, was that Congress itself had lost the ability to control its spending habits. The solution: vote against the bills and cut spending, period.
When the issue turned to the bailouts of the auto industry in 2008 and 2009, there was additional contention, but not as fierce as the discussions of earmarks.
Santorum said flatly that he was opposed to the auto industry rescue plans, as well as, in principle, a bailout of any segment or component on the marketplace. Santorum went on to expand his opposition to include the Wall Street bailouts and the TARP package of 2008, repeating his ongoing them that capitalism works best when it is encouraged to work constructively, but also when it is allowed to function destructively, as in the form of a managed bankruptcy. “Let markets work because we believe they’re more efficient over time.” Santorum slammed Romney on his support of the Wall Street bailouts.
Romney defended himself by saying that he wrote an op-ed piece opposing the government handing over billions to the auto executives, and said that he too supported managed bankruptcy even for the auto makers. Romney also clarified he didn’t necessarily want to “save any Wall Street Banks,” but that the risk of total collapse was too great to sit idly by watching banks fail one by one. Managed bankruptcy, Romney said, was opposed most vocally by the United Auto Workers, the union most closely related to auto production.
Gingrich said the problem was not as tough as some would claim, pointing out that some U.S. auto plants were doing fine even in the darkest days of recession—BMW in South Carolina, Mercedes in Alabama, Honda in Ohio, to name some examples—and that the real problem was the United Auto Workers and a management team at the big three unable or unwilling to make tough decisions.
“What you had,” Gingrich said, “was an unprecedented violation of 200 years of bankruptcy law by Barack Obama to pay off the UAW at the expense of every bondholder.” Gingrich drew wild applause.
Ron Paul said the he disagreed that there were “good bailouts and bad bailouts. If bailouts are bad, then we shouldn’t be doing it.”
The focus soon shifted to birth control, possibly the most contentious of Main Street topics in the wake of two weeks of controversy and clamor. John King read a question from a viewer, and the result was an immediate round of boos from the people gathered in the Mesa Arts Center, an indication perhaps of the road-weariness of the recent injection of birth control and related issues to the top of the discussion.
Gingrich jumped in voluntarily first. “There is a legitimate question about the power of the government to impose on religion activities which any religion opposes,” Gingrich said. “But I just want to point out that you did not once in the 2008 campaign, not once did any member of the elite media, ask why Barack Obama voted in favor of legalizing infanticide.” This drew a roar of applause from the house. Gingrich added that it was Obama who was the extremist on the issue of abortion, not any of the Republicans on the stage.
Romney pointed out that in the ABC debate some weeks earlier George Stephanopoulos had brought up birth control and contraception in what amounted to a blind side hit to the candidates, a harbinger, perhaps, to the controversies which soon followed. Romney said that religious conscience and religious tolerance were both under concerted attack by the Obama administration, and cited the example of the recent Supreme Court case in which even the most liberal justices sided with the churches who said their right to hire should not be constrained by EEO laws and other federal regulations.
When it appeared clear that the four candidates were going to use this moment as an opportunity to bash President Obama, King attempted to steer the debate back to the candidates themselves (more about that telling detail later).
Santorum defended his recent statements on contraception by citing current intellectual discussion (he mentioned Charles Murray’s new book, reviewed days ago by The New York Times) about the problem of increasing numbers of children being born out of wedlock, and its wider cost to society.
“The bottom line is that we have a problem in this country,” Santorum said, “the family is fracturing. Over forty percent of children born in this country are born out of wedlock. It’s five times the rate of poverty in single parent households than it is in two parent homes.” Taking a cue from many conservative analysts who see the birth control issue—among other social issues—as a dangerous trap inflamed by liberals in recent weeks, Santorum differentiated himself from the left by adding “just because I want to talk about [this issue] doesn’t mean I want a government program to fix it! That’s what they do, that’s not what we do.”
Paul turned the issue back on the role—or lack thereof—of government, explaining that the issue is largely the result of the feds gaining so much management control over health care and medicine, an area, like schools, where the federal government should step aside and allow states to manage to process.
Sensing an ambush perhaps, the four candidates seemed in general agreement at first on the hot-button issue of birth control than on any issue during the debate. But the unity was not to last. King redirected the candidates to their differences, which lead first Romney into a defense of his actions as governor, and eventually Santorum into a defense of some of his votes as a U.S. Senator. Ron Paul then put Santorum on the defensive (though Paul notably did not mention Santorum by name) by pointing out that when bills before Congress get packaged together, the process ensures that many bad allocations of funding will occur, including, in this context, money for Planned Parenthood.
For the second time during debate, perhaps stinging from the barrage of negative ads being run in Michigan, Santorum pleaded innocent to a crime he had not been charged with. And again, Santorum lost ground with his convoluted, complicated explanation which attempted (badly) to walk the audience and the viewers through Title 10 versus Title 20 and the Byzantine treacheries of the legislative processes, in essence saying his was opposed in principle to Title 10 but as a counterbalance introduced Title 20, a program designed to promote abstinence-based initiatives.
“This demonstrates the problem that I’m talking about,” Paul responded, “because there’s always an excuse.” Paul said he would not support Title 20, because it also represents a way for government to get involved in people’s lives. Romney also piled on, referencing Santorum’s past statements in favor of Title 10. Santorum then attempted to turn to issue back onto Romney’s health care plans in Massachusetts. Romney fired back, and eventually the argument trekked across Romney Care, balanced budgets in Massachusetts, Michael Dukakis, and eventually landed on Santorum’s support for Arlen Specter, a pro-choice Republican who also at the time served on the Judiciary Committee.
Santorum, winding his way through his reasons for support of Specter, finally reached his most salient point: that backing Specter meant support for constitutionally conservative choices for appointment to the Supreme Court at a critical time, and possibly saved Senate approval of Justices Thomas and Alito from outright rejection by liberals in Congress. Romney wasn’t buying that tortured justification. The result was a melee of sorts as both Romney and Santorum attempted to talk at the same time while King tried to move on to the next topic.
The debate then moved on to the issue of illegal immigration, which carries great weight in the state of Arizona. King cited a recent study commissioned by the government which estimated the cost of an effective border security fence at over $3 million per mile. Ron Paul said we could do better.
“The best way to do it,” Paul said, “is to forget about the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan, and put the resources on this border.” The comment drew cheers from many in the room. Paul went on to suggest other improvements, such as an overhaul of an outdated, inefficient immigration service. “We reward illegal immigration,” Paul said, through hospitals, schools and other costly programs.
Gingrich turned the question to examples where border fencing had already worked, such as along the southern California border near San Diego. But Gingrich said that political considerations, such as wetland preservation, caused construction to stop. Gingrich also took the discussion back to the $3 million per mile cost: “That’s my earlier point. If you modernize the federal government so it’s competent, you could probably do it for ten percent of the cost cited in that study.” Gingrich called the border fence a do-able project.
Romney cited the rule in Arizona as a potential model for the rest of country: the use of online databases such as E-Verify to confirm identity and work status. Romney also said he would drop the federal lawsuits against states such as Arizona and Alabama. Santorum said that we need to allow law enforcement in the states to carry out their missions, and to empower states to make their own decision regarding immigration.
Ultimately Rick Santorum had a bad night. Romney fared somewhat better, buoyed in part by a supportive Arizona audience that seemed more inclined to Romney’s traditionalism than to Santorum’s insurrectionist social views. Gingrich, largely able to stay out of the mud-splatter, remained more statesmanlike, coming across, as he has in some past debate performances, as a wise facilitator of balanced, unified thinking.
On some answers Ron Paul played it for laughs, but in fairness to the Texas Congressman, he was bypassed on many topics for which his libertarian message carries surprising relevance and perspective at a time when the social issues seem to be putting the other candidates at risk of getting bogged down. Paul has no such liabilities on this front.
Post script:
The long stretch between the close of the Maine caucuses and the start of the Michigan and Arizona contests is finally coming to a close, and during that time a consensus seems to have emerged of a Republican race quickly turning into a two-man contest, a 12 round boxing match between Romney and Santorum. This of course simplifies things for journalists and reporters, and harkens back to four years ago as the downward arc of other well-known names (John Edwards for the Democrats and Mike Huckabee for the GOP) coincided with the rise in relative parity between the top two contenders.
The sudden arrival of social issues at the forefront makes this two-candidate format more manageable for the media mavens and the professional analysts, who see their role, in part, as facilitators for simplification. Candidate “A” versus Candidate “B.” Group One versus Group Two. Reporters rarely embrace complexity. But unity and cohesion is even worse: of what use is professional wrestling without the stage blood?
And this brings me back to that brief, five second encounter at the end of the first round of talk about birth control. CNN’s John King saw, for a few squirming and uncomfortable moments at least, that all four candidates might remain resolute. They were not going to take the bait, and Gingrich said as much.
Copyright 2012, Thursday Review
