David Pakman: Welcome to the show. I want to get right into talking about the Republican
debate in New Hampshire. Joining us are Bill Scher from Campaign for America's Future and
www.LiberalOasis.com, and also Matt Lewis from The Daily Caller. Hey, guys, thanks for
joining me.
Matt Lewis: Hey.
Bill Scher: Great to be here.
David: So I was watching this debate. I have so many questions for you. I mean, the first
one is that the most notable thing that I found is that did the Republican candidates
also know that this was way too early to be meaningful and therefore decided just to attack
Obama instead of each other? I'll go to Matt first.
Lewis: Well, first of all, let me say, I think that there's a lot of blame to go around,
but I would really put a lot of the blame on the format. I really think that when you
have seven candidates debating it's hard to get... to become substantive, to talk about
real issues.
I think that quite often, John King, the moderator, whom I normally like, was really interrupting
people, cutting them off early, and I think some of it was quite silly, the "this or that"
thing, so I think the format sadly doesn't lend itself to thoughtful debate. I think
Newt Gingrich, if you gave him an hour, would probably be more than happy to talk details
with you.
The other thing I'll say, though, is look, I wrote a piece at The Daily Caller yesterday
which points out there is a direct correlation between George W. Bush's plummeting of approval
ratings and the beginning of the Democratic primary debates in 2003. The best way to get
ahead in a primary is to attack the incumbent president of the other party, and Barack Obama
has to be very careful there, because this really was the beginning of the end for George
W. Bush, even though he won reelection, the beginning of his cratering of approvals started
during the primaries.
David: Bill, what do you think? And what do you think, I mean, very specifically, Tim
Pawlenty was given an opportunity to restate his criticism of "Obamneycare", as he called
it, and he really didn't. That was just one striking example to me. What do you think
was going on?
Scher: Well, certainly the professional pundits have really focused on that as his big mis-moment,
and to the extent that it is, it's sort of his own fault, because he raised expectations
that he was going to lay into Romney by previewing that line the day prior. Generally speaking,
your point, David, was right, it is too early to go after each other. Candidates usually
bide their time. They don't want to lay it all on the table eight months in advance when
few people are paying attention, they want to build up to that. People layed off on Howard
Dean for a very long time in 2004 before, you know, Kerry and Gephardt did their murder-suicide
pact...
Lewis: And Lieberman too, right? Wasn't... I think Lieberman was one of the first people.
And really, what you're doing is you're hoping that someone else will do it for you. You
know, what happens is if I attack Bill, Bill and I both become less popular and someone
else wins the election, so you keep hoping that someone else will do the dirty work.
Scher: Right. So, I mean, Pawlenty's mistake I think was not in being gentle during the
debate, it was in taking a shot the day before the debate, so when it was put before him
in the debate, it seemed like he was being weasely and couldn't look his opponent in
the eye and say the same thing.
David: Were either of you surprised, and maybe Matt first, that Michele Bachmann did this
thing where she kind of like announced her presidential campaign during the debate. I
mean, in other words, why was she in the debate before that if she was only exploring? I don't
get it.
Lewis: I was surprised by it, but it probably makes sense. I'm guessing that she alerted
CNN that she would be participating in the debate and that she would be eligible because
she would file her paperwork by the time the debate happened. I'm guessing they were clued
in on that. But I thought it was a brilliant move. I was surprised by it, and it ended
up, you know, first of all, she would've probably been the lead anyway the next day on Tuesday
morning in the headlines because she performed so well, but even had she not performed that
well, she would've still, you know, been in the headlines or at least in the first paragraph
because she did make news at the debate. I thought it was a smart move.
David: Now, Bill, when you hear Matt Lewis say Michele Bachmann performed well, I'm confused
by that. I just heard her basically parroting Tea Party talking points. What did you see?
Scher: Well, look, a lot of professional pundits, not just conservatives, were really praising
Bachmann's performance. I agree with you, David, I think she cleared a very low bar.
And that, you know, she didn't drool on herself and was able to deliver some canned lines
well, and all of a sudden she's now a plausible candidate, you know, from my liberal perspective,
you know, puff up Bachmann all you want. Fantastic. I love it. I hope she gets the nomination,
I think that would be easy pickin's.
But you know, Huckabee had some good moments early too, and then once he became more serious
after he won the Iowa caucuses, pressures become different, questions get tougher, your
staying power is much more under duress. So, you know, the fact that Bachmann could, you
know, compose herself and sort of sand off some of her rough edges in a very constrained
format with no real follow-up questions is one thing, let's see if her poll numbers go
up and how she handles the pressure if this actually takes off.
David: Yeah, I mean, Matt Lewis from The Daily Caller, you don't-- regardless of how you
would rate her performance in this so-called debate, you don't actually think Michele Bachmann
is at all a viable candidate, do you?
Lewis: Yeah, I do.
David: You do?
Lewis: I do, because I really think the field is incredibly wide open, and I feel like the
rules have changed. I mean, normally you would disqualify her simply because she's a mere
member of the House of Representatives. I mean, she's... as far as I know, she's never
held elected office, and it's been, what, at least 100 years since we've elected somebody
from the House directly to become president.
So I mean, historically speaking, regardless of how you feel about Michele Bachmann, just
her positioning would not normally make her a top-tier candidate, but I think that things
have changed so much, to such a degree, that she is in fact to be taken seriously. Can
I put some numbers on that, David?
David: Yeah, please.
Lewis: You know, most... when there is a more fractious primary, no clear frontrunner, more
than three people, you know, considered top-tier, the person that wins the early contest tends
to win around 35% of the primary vote. That's not a lot. So anyone who can consolidate some
of the factions within the party has a shot at this.
Whether you're coming from the more calmer ex-governor side of things, Romney, Pawlenty,
Huntsman, or you're coming from the more charged movement conservative side of things, Bachmann,
Gingrich, Santorum, Cain, you know, anyone can potentially piece together 35%. And so
if you can get your factions consolidated and the other camp ends up fracturing, so
let's say Romney and Pawlenty and Huntsman all have a piece of the calmer side of things
and none of them can break out, Bachmann clears the field on the right wing, and she's the
only one being taken seriously there, she can get 35%. That's totally plausible.
David: Wow. Well, let's just hope she doesn't take up that 16-year-old on that Constitution
debate, because I think that that... she can't possibly come out of that thing on top.
Hey, last thing, can we all agree that the Ron Paul Revolution is not off to a good start,
Matt?
Lewis: Yeah. I mean, it was... it was in doubt to begin with. I will say this: I think that,
it's funny, I feel like there were several occasions when Ron Paul was asked a question
and he sort of had an interesting answer, but he just didn't package it well. I feel
like if I could like put him on pause and then step up and kind of repackage what he
said in a better delivery that he could have an even bigger impact. I mean, I do think,
look, let's give Ron Paul a little bit of credit here.
You know, you start to see Republicans taking a bit different approach to foreign policy,
a lot of them were talking about, you know, getting out of Afghanistan. You know, four
years ago when Ron Paul was in debates against Rudy Giuliani and John McCain and Mitt Romney
and Mike Huckabee, the Republican Party was quite different. And I think the party has
in some ways come toward Ron Paul, though he'll never be elected.
David: And Bill, last thing to you, forgetting about who you think is the most likely to
be the Republican nominee, who do you think, of the people that debated on Monday, has
the best shot of beating Obama?
Scher: Well, I think anyone who has a shot of beating Obama is coming from that calmer
side of things, Romney, Pawlenty, and Huntsman when he does jump in. I think getting on that
movement conservative side of things, they're not going to be in sync with the middle of
the country. The economy would have to really seriously crater for the public to say I'll
just take whoever's not Obama, I don't care who it is.
I think you put up someone from that camp, Obama can weather a struggling economy much
better. He's got a cushion to work with because he can say look, you may not be totally thrilled
with where things are right now, but you've got a steady hand at the wheel as opposed
to what your alternative is. Having an ex-governor there who's not a movement conservative has
a better shot at taking advantage of a weak economy.
David: Which, by the way, is the position now of the Tea Party, which said they will
support whoever is the Republican nominee, so distinctions between the Republican and
Tea Parties being knocked down one at a time. I wish...
Lewis: That's one Tea Party group, Tea Party Express. I just have to say that.
David: You're right, Matt, it is one. So that's Matt Lewis from The Daily Caller, Bill Scher,
www.LiberalOasis.com and Campaign for America's Future. Thanks, guys. We'll have you back
when we get to the next level of debate, which hopefully will be a more legitimate one.
Lewis: All right, thank you.
Scher: Take care.
David: OK, thanks, guys. Bye.
Transcript provided by Alex Wickersham and www.Subscriptorium.com. For transcripts, translations,
captions, and subtitles, or for more information, visit www.Subscriptorium.com, or contact Alex
at subscriptorium@gmail.com.