The men and woman running for the Republican Party’s Presidential nomination sparred in the 18th and final debate for the 2012 election cycle yesterday on the FOX News network. The candidates discussed lightning-rod social issues, foreign affairs, traded barbs among themselves and hurled attacks against President Barack Obama.
The debate in Iowa comes only a few weeks before the state will hold their party caucus on Jan. 3rd; this will be the first test of each candidates’ mettle, organization and ability to win.
Newt Gingrich, frontrunner in many polls, answered the first few questions of the debate on his perceived “flip-flopping” on numerous issues. Gingrich’s answers were on-point and he deftly defended himself from these allegations and explained that he’s “changed with the times.” This argument may seem valid for the former Speaker, who’s an excellent communicator, but may lead to troubling conclusions: if Gingrich changes with the times, will he shift his ideals with populist winds if elected president?
Texas Governor Rick Perry had a solid and minimal debate performance, and pledged to “Get it on” with Obama. He hocked his ideas – controversial but interesting – continually, and stayed on message. He also delivered several memorable laugh lines, including likening himself to Denver Broncos hero quarterback Tim Tebow: “I am the Tim Tebow of the Iowa Caucuses,” he said.
Another Texan, Representative Ron Paul, delivered several great lines in the debate, as per usual. His firebrand nature and passionate views seem unable to fit into these debates. Paul’s isolationism and libertarian fury fire up the crowd , but fail to electrify mainstream voters. Paul also battled it out with Representative Michele Bachmann, of Minnesota.
The fascinating banter between Bachmann and Paul was representative of the dichotomy of the American right. Bachmann, a combative neoconservative warrior, argued with Paul, a libertarian-leaning isolationist to the point of war with Iran.
Paul’s isolationism, however, comes off as extreme and outrageous because of how he communicates it. His constitutional basis of his theory is correct – as wars need to be declared properly and through the means in the Constitution – but his conclusion is incorrect.
This issue is a hard pill for conservatives to swallow; the issue of another war in the Middle East galvanizes all manner of people in the party and is an important debate for the very heart and soul of the Republican party, whether to embrace the Dwight Eisenhower-inspired isolationism of Ron Paul, or the aggressive foreign policy of George W. Bush espoused by Bachmann and others.
