The Michigan Debate

Much has already been written about yesterday's Republican debate in Michigan, focusing on economic policy. For instance, you can find several columns over at RealClearPolitics. And Anthony Palmer brings his typically good analysis over at The 7-10.

I don't have much to add. When i watched online (from work, catching only snippets between work stuff), i felt Huckabee was tight, pressing - using those terms as you might in sports. Trying to hit a home run, if you will. After watching the rebroadcast last night, i softened on that view, although Mike didn't hit a home run this time. He did about as well as he could with the limited opportunities, including the brutal assignment of having to talk about SCHIP.

I did note the contrast between his answer and that of Fred Thompson on that ethanol question. From the transcript, first the question...

Governor Huckabee, the federal government has spent years and billions of dollars promoting ethanol but the result has been a glut of ethanol and gas prices that are still at record levels. Wouldn't it be better to just let the free market determine whether ethanol makes economic sense or not?

Here's Huckabee's answer, blending passion, a goal, humor, and insight:

"I think ethanol and all biofuels are going to be an important part of the future energy needs of the country. But the accelerated pace at which we get there is critical for national security, as well as for our own economic
interest. The fact is, we keep talking about 15-, 20-, 30-year plans; that's nonsense.If we don't start saying we'll do this within a decade, we're never, ever going to get there. And we need to approach it the same way that a car does at the Nascar pit-stop -- you rush in, you get it done because you have to.

We're in a race. We're in a race for our lives against people who want to kill us. And a lot of the reasons that we are entangled in the Middle East is because our money buys their oil, that money ends up coming back to us in the way of Islamo-fascism terrorists.

We've got to come to the place where everything is on the table: nuclear, biofuels, ethanol, wind, solar -- any and everything this country can produce. We once had a president who said, "Let's go to the moon in 10 years," and we were there in eight. And we did that when we started with the technology of bottle rockets, when we got the thing launched. And we all saw that we can do it.

But we can't do it when we create this sense of: 'We'll wait until another generation.' We can't wait until another generation. Instead of running it like Nascar, we've been running it like taking the family station wagon in for letting Goober and Gomer take a look at it when they get time, under the shade tree. So it's critical that for our own interest, economically and from a point of national security, that we become energy independent and commit to doing it within a decade."

Contrast that with Thompson's answer, in dire need of a political gibberish to English translation:

"Ultimately, it'll be the free market, but I think, like the governor says, I think that we're in a situation now where we've got to use everything that's available to us. I think renewables and alternatives are a part of that picture. I don't look for it to last forever. When the industry gets up and running and on its feet again, I don't see the need for what we're doing now.

But you have to look at the bigger picture. Most economic downturns over the last 25 years have been preceded by a spike in oil prices. There's probably plenty of oil out there for the indefinite future. But price is an issue.

And that brings in the whole question of the importance of stability in the world. The United States, since the end of World War II, has been a force for stability and democracy, which helps bring about stability, for a long, long time. Our policies with regard to places like the Middle East and Iraq right now are very important with regard to the very issue we're talking about, because instability and crises in the wrong parts of the world are going to cause dramatic results in the upward movement of oil prices, and that could be devastating to our economy."

I believe the main take-away from this debate is not the debut of Fred Thompson, though. It is the shift in tone and strategy for Romney & Giuliani. The two apparently have decided that it's down to one or the other, so they're going to start attacking each other. Paraphrasing Huckabee (i can't find the reference) in post-debate coverage, A & B can slug it out and take each other out, leaving the path open for C. Given his lack of funds right now, it may be best to not be in the top 2 and have to worry about attack ads, or wasting time in silly tit-for-tat spats.