by Amy Kaufman
Last night the top eight Republican presidential hopefuls participated in the Bloomberg – Washington Post sponsored economic debate, where each candidate attempted to breakthrough as an authority on job creation, tax policy and global economics. Businessman Herman Cain’s (R-GA) recent success in a series of national polls catapulted him to center stage as fellow candidates harped on his 9-9-9 economic plan. Former Governor Mitt Romney (R-MA), who is largely considered the frontrunner, also received significant airtime as he touted his private sector experience.
Meanwhile, former Gov. John Huntsman (R-UT) and former Speaker Newt Gingrich presented themselves as second tier candidates, occasionally inserting themselves in the back-and-forth match between Romney and Cain. Congressman Michele Bachmann (R-MN), Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) and Governor Rick Perry (R-TX) failed to break through and present themselves as real contenders. Completing the field, former Senator Rick Santorum was hardly given any airtime, and his responses were more akin to an inaugural Senate campaign than that of a presidential contender.
Although the moderators attempted to explore a number of economic topics, candidates continually returned to issues of tax policy, ‘Obamacare’ and Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 plan. Cain’s recent rise in the polls has brought his 9-9-9 plan, which proposes a 9 percent sales tax, corporate tax and income tax, into focus. Despite the unrelenting attacks and criticisms from his fellow candidates, Cain largely held his own in defending his idea, explaining that unlike other economic proposals, his is meant to restructure the tax code, and not to simply pass through Congress.
Romney was the only other candidate to offer further explanation for his economic proposal, which Cain questioned for the undoubted complexity within the 140-page document. Romney also joined his stage mates in calling for significant cuts to the federal budget, repealing the new health care law and reigning in government spending. Romney’s performance was undoubtedly polished, but the presidential hopeful continues to behave more like a candidate for CEO, interviewing with the board, rather than a presidential candidate trying to connect with everyday constituents.
During the event Gingrich and Paul took the opportunity to air their distaste for the Federal Reserve, with both asserting they would fire Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke. It was evident that both Gingrich and Paul have a firm grasp on domestic policy, but both candidates came across as shrewd and disconnected from the daily concerns of average voters. Bachmann also took to her soapbox by sticking to her traditional sounds bites, and calling for the repeal of ‘Obamacare.’ Unfortunately, she had little to contribute in terms of actual legislation and right now proposals. Perry was the most docile of the group, making evident his discomfort with global economics and lack of solutions for the current economic climate.
This debate was certainly the tamest but it was the first to truly delve deeper into fiscal policy. However, beyond Cain and Romney, the other six candidates failed to outline a specific policy proposal to address issues of job creation and economic stimulation. Romney and Cain survived the evening’s event as the frontrunners while Bachmann, Gingrich, Huntsman, Paul, Perry and Santorum displayed strong knowledge of specific issue-based areas of economic policy, but lacked the ability to traverse the entire subject.
Although the debate was by far the most substantive so far, the event’s subdued tone is likely to leave voters unmoved by candidates’ redundant rhetoric. The next debate is schedule for October 18th, and it will be crucial for candidates to clearly define their policy proposals beyond catchphrases and voting records if they hope to influence potential voters.
Established in 1995, the Georgetown Public Policy Review is the McCourt School of Public Policy’s nonpartisan, graduate student-run publication. Our mission is to provide an outlet for innovative new thinkers and established policymakers to offer perspectives on the politics and policies that shape our nation and our world.
I’m not easily impressed but you’ve done it with that posting.