The SC Debate Round UP: Attacking..Defending...Defining Yourself and Your Opponents

The dynamics in last night's debate made it by far the most interesting and lively to me at least of the crop of debates so far. I noticed an interesting dynamic throughout. The candidates were either attacking or defending: someone or something, in an effort to define themselves or their opponents.

I first noticed it when Thompson unloaded on Huckabee trying to paint him as a big government, blame America first politician. Huckabee defended his record pointing out his approval rating, record on education, etc. however the most interesting point was when he pointed out that he GOVERNED. This was a clear dig at Thompson who's only experience is a member of the Senate. Each of the candidates with governing experience tried to define the issue as such, either attacking another's lack of practical management experience or by defending their own. On the issue of experience, Huckabee, Romney and Giuliani all tried to define this issue as management versus legislative. This was one of several areas in which either attack or defenses were used to define oneself or their opponent.

The issues were essentially broken down into five parts: fiscal conservatism, GWOT, illegal immigration, social issues, and Ronald Reagan. Ron Paul played the perfect foil on all GWOT issues and the rest of the field took turns attacking his position in order to define for themselves the most attractive stance on the GWOT. The candidates took turns attacking parts of Paul's position in an attempt to present themselves as the most hawkish. Paul, for his part, obliged entirely and attacked our current policy as entirely too intrusive to the rest of the world.

Paul gave the rest of the field an opening when he attacked our relationship with Israel and Huckabee took the bait on that issue and vigorously defended our relationship with Israel. Israel, and our close relationship with her, is one of those base issues that is important for every Republican candidate to get behind in order to get the nomination. In every aspect, the field minus Paul defended an aggressive and muscular foreign policy, while Paul countered by defending his own non interventionist policy and attacking aspects of the current policy. It was like having a more intelligent version of the Democrat's policy there on stage as a foil. I thought it worked fabulously. Paul himself worked perfectly as a foil. On foreign policy, we could count on him to present a version of the Dem's foreign policy to be attacked by the rest of the field. On other issues, he became an x factor and you weren't sure what he would say.

For me, John McCain is emerging as the candidate that is by far the most credible in this issue. Between his long, distinguished, and heroic record on military matters, and his firm Iraq position, both calling out the Rumsfeld strategy and initially backing the surge, he is strongest on this issue. Rudy tried a foolish attack trying to tie himself in with the troop surge. While Rudy may in fact have supported the surge from its dawn, he hasn't lead the way McCain has.

On the economy, they each tried to define themselves as the most fiscally conservative. McCain touted his own record as not only a tax cutter but a spending cutter. He tried to define the issue by once again referring to it as Washington changing Republicans on spending. The field interchanged between attacking the Dems big government policies, each other's record, and defending their own in what was clearly a race to see who will be viewed as the most fiscally conservative. The fiscal conservatives are a huge base and they are looking for someone that will provide credibility for Republicans on this issue.

Thompson attacked Giuliani for essentially what he characterized as stealing his own tax plan. While this likely worked and was met with applause, it should be noted that Thompson's plan is the FLAT tax, and Giuliani's tax is by no means flat. Thompson also went after Huckabee for what he deemed as liberal economic policies while he governed Arkansas. On this issue their attacks and defenses were targeted to paint themselves as most fiscally conservative and paint economic liberalism upon their opponents.

On illegal immigration, each also tried to identify themselves as the one most fit to seal the border. There was little debate that sealing the borders was paramount. The debate came down to who had the best plan and who was most fit to lead on this issue. Thompson saw another opportunity to attack Huckabee on his record. Romney attacked McCain's plan as amnesty. That is clearly a concept that each will look to use to define their opponents and avoid as a label for themselves. Rudy defended his own record. I felt he did a good job of pointing that the label that NYC was a sanctuary city during his tenure was without proper context. He pointed out that he had a policy that allowed illegals to report crime and send their kids to school without fear of being deported. As mayor, this seemed like the only sensible thing to do given the federal government was only actually deporting a very small percentage of illegals anyway. He defined the issue as a border fence, physical and technological, and tamper proof ID cards.

The social issues were nearly totally ignored, however Huckabee defended the institute of marriage and yet another example of his enormous credibility on that issue.

The most interesting part of the debate was everyone looking to define themselves along with Reagan. Here was another opportunity for Thompson to attack Huckabee. Huckabee defended his record and identified with Reagan by pointing out that Reagan raised taxes by one billion dollars, ten billion in today's dollars, his first year as Governor. McCain tried to identify with Reagan by pointing out that during the Reagan revolution they cut spending along with taxes. He attempted to define the Reagan issue as his brand of fiscal conservatism that focuses on tight spending. Rudy tried to define the Reagan issue as peace through strength, and vowed to "stay on offense". He also identified the Reagan issue as a broad coalition of folks where the party could be competitive in states like Cali, New York, Florida, Pennsylvania, etc. Thompson tried to define the Reagan issue by his consistent conservative record. By defending his own record, calling it the only consistent conservative record, he tried to define the Reagan issue that way.

All in all, it was a fascinating debate with each candidate either attacking or defending concepts, ideas, and other candidates, in a race to either define themselves or define their opponent.