#scdebate

The GOP South Carolina debate was awesome.  I loved the energy.  Here are my takeaways.

To start it off, lets choose a winner.  There are three criteria I use for a winner of a debate, especially in the primary.  The first is obvious: who argued their case the best.  The second is only slightly less obvious: who argued their case the best to me.  And the third proceeds from there: who argued their case best for the audience.

Ron Paul killed it over all.  By that I mean, he owned. By that I mean he did the best job overall.  His answers were quick, they had energy, and they were deep.  I'm sure that comes with years of practice, but it is still awesome to see that practice manifest itself with the ability to answer questions in such an efficient manner.  The only skill that perhaps he didn't demonstrate was pathos, but of course that is what the private sector should provide ;).  He rocked everything having to do with legislative action.  Tort Reform, helping the economy via fixing the fed.  His only policy burp from my perspective is on interrogation.  Just because you don't believe in murder doesn't mean you don't shoot the bad guy when needed.   The same goes for interrogation.  Torture for its own sake is a horrific thing.  But an interrogation is different.  And let's face it.  The US's version of Torture doesn't leave lasting scars, on top of which we would only use it when needed to save lives.  Paul's answers on the Union Busting (bringing in the interstate commerce clause) was perfect.  His defence of Isreal, while awkward with respect to talking about the Jewish position, was otherwise absolutely spot on.  His defence of drug legalization, something he shares with Johnson, was spot on and entertaining and passionate.

The second place would have to go to Gary Johnson.  He didn't quite have the positive aggression that Paul has, but he maintained his head and answered the questions fairly well.  He got caught by the clock a couple of times, and his 'ripostes' could have been less defensive.  I'm speaking currently about the abortion issue.  Someone tweeted that Gary had a Beta posture.  I laughed, because I love that language.  And it seems true.  He seems like he is absorbing the atmosphere, and at least at this outing seemed lesser than the stage.  Unfortunate, and this is why Paul gets the A+.  Johnson also gave the best answer on immigration.  Herman Cain explained it in terms of government action.  Johnson actually proposed a solution.  The only one to do so.  Of course the debate format limited people's ability to all answer the same question, but you still got the sense it was really the only solution out there.  And it doesn't hurt that it is exactly my position on the issue.  I am all for Gary's position on abortion, but I thought his answer could have been much better.  A Liberty defence of the issue.  Again, this is where Ron Paul shines.

I clearly come from the Libertarian or Classical Liberal perspective.  Which means that these two took the 'best job arguing their case to my point of view" award.  Winners by a land slide.  It is totally enjoyable to see the liberty perspective representing a huge part of this debate. 

Herman Cain gave a great statement about defining the mission in afghanistan.  Great answer to contrast with Obama or any NeoCon, but not good in that he doesn't have an idea of what the mission would be.  Paul answered this question directly.  Herman failed with the economy question.  He used energy indepence as something the president could do to lower prices.  But then he mentioned that the speculators would start speculating down if we introduced our own energy.  Speculators have nothing to do with long term pricing, and in fact help to stabilize pricing, even if you pay more in the short term.  Mentioning them as an issue is Democrat red meat.  Herman Cain wants to abolish the IRS, which is just a talking point.  But he presented the FairTax instead.  I love how knowlegeable he was about the issue, but he needs to realize that the fairtax is unconstitutional.  Why?  Because it is a tax on a non privelged activity that isn't avoidable.  The other reason would be that when services are taxed, it becomes the equivelant of a direct tax, which must be apportioned by the population of the states.  The 16th amendment does not affect this since this is not an income tax.  Anyway he lost points because his answers, while solid, weren't definitive policy statements.  He clearly won the 'best while appealing to the audience' criteria.  I agree with the audience that he came across as cool and collected.  But I don't put too much stake in that.  I just want a candidate to feel definitive, which Paul and Johnson also did.

I thought Santorum did a good job style wise.  He showed plenty of energy.  He also had one Liberty oriented idea -- change SS and Medicare into a voucher system.  Of corse he is unfortunately standing next to two libertarians who have a much more radical solution.

I thought Pawlenty was the weakest of the candidates in terms of showing.  The panel hammered his weak spots, and he defended as opposed to apologized for them.  And by apology, he would have had to explain how his thinking has changed on the issue, so that the audience can get a sense that the 'mistake' won't happen again.  He didn't.  And his style, while comfortable (moreso than Johnson's), seemed too polished for pathos.  Next to the fire of paul, and the solid cain, it created a bad impression.  And without Johnson's awesomeness on the issues, it brought him down.

There you go.  Great discussion over all (can you really call that a debate?).

The results s seen in a fairly concise twitter post: Paul > Johnson > Cain > Santorum > Pawlenty.