The big debate

One debate does not a campaign make. But there were a few surprises last night, as well as some warning signs.

First, for the Republicans, Romney clearly came out ahead — unscathed,
strong, focused on the economy, pleasant. Many thought he would catch
the brunt of the attacks from others on flip-flopping, his Massachusetts
healthcare plan and not being conservative enough. Pawlenty folded from
his attacks on Fox on Sunday, and Santorum was the only one to go after
Romney on abortion. A small ding.

Bachmann was a standout, and it pains me to say it, but she was appealing to her audience, loved the 30-second sound bite format and made news with her announcement of filing her candidacy. She was quicker on her feet than I suspected, less threatening than some might have thought she would be and, most important, upbeat and positive. She was the un-Palin, eschewing negativity, defensiveness and the propensity for being a prima donna.  

This debate was a big problem for Pawlenty — his whole strategy revolves around winning Iowa, and Bachmann could prove to be the Huckabee of 2012. With more performances like last night, she might just clean his clock there. I doubt a candidate will be made in Iowa, but some, like Pawlenty and Gingrich, may be deep-sixed.

Pawlenty does not appear to have the ability to break through, even within this relatively weak field. Maybe because he is weaker than many imagined. He was not a strong governor, and he left the state of Minnesota to grapple with a $6 billion deficit. Not exactly a sterling record. And his answers and aw-shucks manner don’t seem to be connecting. Add to this his ridiculous economic plan, where the numbers don’t add up, the deficits are outlandish and the assumptions (continuous 5 percent growth rates) are ridiculous.

So, on the Republican side, score one for Romney and Bachmann, Santorum and Gingrich held their own, and Pawlenty was the loser.  

Democrats, however, need to get their act together. It is clear from this debate that the punching bag is going to be President Obama. There needs to be a coordinated and complete response team at times like this to run down all the factual errors, crazy economic claims and lack of focus on why we are in the mess we are in and what Obama has done to get us out. Romney, for example, cannot be allowed to get away with his call for no help for the auto companies — that would have been a disaster, costing America another 3 million jobs. Bachmann can’t be allowed to be the creator of economic doom with her “behind the scenes” rejection of TARP.

If the Democrats allow these debates and charges to go unanswered for the next eight to 10 months, it will cost them dearly politically. It will also make it difficult to have the kind of discussion about actually solving the nation’s problems that we need to have.  

We need a serious rapid-response team ready to go; real-time fact-checkers tweeting and emailing corrections; post-debate analysis; same-day efforts to “set the record straight.” In addition, we should be ready the following day to sift through these debates and take the offensive on the candidates and their views. We should, in fact, also be driving the debate, not bearing the brunt of it.