May 15, 2007 11:32 PM

A Hawkeye's view of the GOP debate

NOW HEAR THIS.

The dust has settled, and now we're buried in fall-out, feedback and what one of the combatants on Tuesday night might call "blow-back."

After Tuesday night's Republican presidential debate in South Carolina, the national pundits can talk all they want.

HERE is how the AP is reporting it. AND HERE is the story from today's old style Rocky Mountain News, reporting from a debate-watching party in Urbandale, Iowa.

But in Iowa, where the first caucus votes will be cast next January, what really matters is how the punches and counter-punches will play in cornfield country.

So the Rocky Mountain News commissioned three big, flapping Hawkeyes -- University of Iowa professors David Redlawsk, Peverill Squire and Bruce Gronbeck -- to offer their detailed critiques.

Besides naming winners and losers, we asked them to add a few extra thoughts on Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado, and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who has been in the headlines for the past week and whose campaign hosted a debate-watching party we found on the "back roads" Tuesday night.

Big kudos go to Redlawsk, who offered his views in real time as the debate unfolded.

These Hawkeyes are a tough crowd. Click the "Full entry" to see what the Iowans saw.

From David Redlawsk, associate professor of political science at the University of Iowa

"As you can tell from my terrible efforts at keeping up and giving you some comments online that I had a hard time telling these guys apart. Would have been very helpful if Fox had shown their names all the time!

My overall sense of the debate is that no one really stood out. The (Sen. John) Edwards comment by (former Arkansas Gov.) Huckabee played well to the Republican crowd, but I'm not sure it really gets him any further past 1% in the end. (Former Wisconsin Gov.) Thompson, who desperately needs a breakout here in Iowa did nothing to really help himself, and sounded confused when asked what he would cut in Washington. Tancredo on immigration had a nice crack about conversion on the road to Des Moines. Clearly several of the second (or third) tier candidates were prepared with zingers designed to get them some attention and perhaps some time on TV after the debate. But again it isn't clear that this translates into getting them out of the pack

With immigration, while Tancredo was asked first and things heated up a bit, the focus was quickly put onto the "top three" once again, just like it was with (former Virginia Gov. Jim) Gilmore's Rudy McRomney comment. Tancredo and Gilmore get some play, but overshadowed by the big three's opportunities to respond.

(Former New York City Mayor Rudy) Giuliani will probably get play on the Rep. Ron Paul Iraq war/ 9-11 statement - he got to waive the 9-11 flag again - and the debate began to degenerate into an attempted back and forth.

A lot depends in the end on whether Republican primary and caucus voters want a "true" conservative, or whether they are willing to be more pragmatic, more focused on electability than on conservative orthodoxy. Historically Iowa Republican Caucus goers are a very conservative bunch, but in our polling in late March about 58% of likely Republican caucus goers picked one of the Rudy McRomney candidates, while another 23% said they were undecided. Less than 20% were looking at anyone else.

Interestingly, while the candidates were focused on "no amnesty" on immigration, our polling shows that both Democrats and Republicans in Iowa support earned citizenship for those already here, with 57% Republican caucus goers in favor, compared to 57% of Democratic caucus goers.

The terrorism scenario question really played to the Republican base, but I wonder how it plays to independents and democrats... (Arizona Sen. John) McCain has the chops here, since he's undergone torture - and he really hit hard on the fact that those in the military agree with him that we should not torture. Got a good response too.

The ad breaks were a bit disconcerting - we go from the serious business of a presidential campaign to acid reflux...

And boy, the Fox News sound effects get annoying after a while! :)

From Peverill Squire, political science professor, University of Iowa:

The gloves are starting to come off and the candidates are beginning to throw some real punches at each other. These attacks will, of course, only intensify over the next few months as each candidate tries to distinguish himself from the others. As the campaign gets nastier the current rankings may get shaken up a bit.

(Rep.) Tom Tancredo looked much more comfortable this evening and gave a much better performance. His problem, however, is that the stage is very crowded and even a good performance can get lost. Among the second tier candidates, (former Arkansas Gov. Mike) Huckabee clearly had the best evening. He was relaxed, folksy, and humorous at appropriate moments.

Among the big three candidates, no one had a great debate and no one had a terrible debate. (Former New York City Mayor Rudy) Giuliani appeared more comfortable this time and he didn’t wobble on the abortion question. But he still has not put in the sort of sterling debate performance that many had expected from him and some of the early luster of his campaign may be fading.

From Bruce Gronbeck, who serves as the A. Craig Baird Distinguished Professor of Public Address at the University of Iowa:

"All right! Americans who love mudwrestling got their wish: After the
hyper-politeness of the first debates, the GOP presidential candidates got down and dirty tonight. Prodded by the Fox News team of Brit
Hume, Chris Wallace, and Wendell Goler, the second-tier candidates went after Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, and Mitt Romney most of time: a woman's right to choice? anti-Bush tax cut? flip-flopping? who's the real conservative around here? And, Gov. (Jim) Gilmore's moniker from his stump speech, "Rudy McRomney," trying to dispose of the poll-toppers all at once.

Good progress in setting candidates' images and stands on especially conservative issues was made, pretty much across the boards. McCain
was a good deal more settled and forceful in this debate, and his appeal to the party to blend its conservative base with others to negotiate legislative victories may have made him the winner of the debate--with the general public, anyhow. Whether his refrain--"We need to work across the aisles"--will bring music to the ears of the social conservatives remains to be seen.

The big loser probably was Rep. Ron Paul--not much of a threat, anyway. In suggesting that the U.S. brought 9/11 upon itself by its warfare in the Middle East, especially Iraq, Paul so riled Giuliani that the mayor called for an apology from him. (Former Wisconsin Gov.) Tommy Thompson was another candidate not scoring much of anything; his responses simply weren't crisp, clear, and rhetorically sculpted.

(Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt) Romney? The former Massachusetts governor had some good moments. He bundled the regular questions he gets on gay unions, pro-choice flip-flopping, and assault weapons legislation around principles of life and non-government interference--a smart position for most in the country's electorate. He was eloquent in his opposition to "special pathways" to citizenship for illegal aliens. He was applauded for arguing why the U.S. needs to keep the Gitmo prison system open. All in all, both he came off as slick and sensible.

(Rep. Tom) Tancredo? He had a better second than first debate. His line, "We [Republicans] lost the mantle of fiscal responsibility," will echo through his much of his party, and his talk of too many fellow candidates being converted to conservatism on the road to Des Moines, not Damascus, got him some laughs and maybe a little more religious support down his political road. Maybe. What was visible in his presentations--and he didn't get enough of them from the panelists--was his much-improved firmness, clarity, and surety. He's not done yet."

Posted by M.E. Sprengelmeyer at 11:32 PM | Comments (2)