HOME / politics: Who's winning, who's losing, and why.

The Gipper DebateRepublicans play nice at the Reagan library.

By John DickersonPosted Friday, May 4, 2007, at 12:54 AM ET

Republican presidential hopefulsWhen I was 12, I met Ronald Reagan. I also co-wrote one of his obituaries when I worked for Time. I am compelled to say this because I just watched the first Republican debate at the Reagan library, where the 10 candidates couldn't go very long without mentioning their ties to the 40^th president or offering a devotional. I'd also like to thank Nancy Reagan for the opportunity to write this piece.

RSS

Perhaps the biggest tribute to the Gipper from the contestants was their adherence to his 11^th commandment that Republicans not speak ill of one another. For men hoping to lead a party that says it knows how to see threats clearly, they sure treated each other nicely. This was, if possible, a less confrontational debate than the Democratic one last week in Columbia, S.C. Isn't the GOP supposed to be the party that's on offense? Sam Brownback, a second-tier candidate who is passionately anti-abortion, could have teed off on Rudy Giuliani's pro-choice position when he was given a softball question, but he demurred. He said he could support a pro-choice candidate as the Republican nominee because the GOP is a big-tent party. (If Alan Keyes were running again, this question would have caused him to speak in tongues.)

Republicans may have been reluctant to define their differences with one another because they're still defining themselves. I e-mailed a Republican veteran of the last two presidential campaigns whose response to the debate was: "Fred Thompson won." That may be right, if for no other reason than the infatuation with Thompson is not entirely based on reason, and no candidate did anything spectacular. None of the top three candidates fixed their problems that have led to widespread GOP yawning, though that may not be possible in a debate. Here are a few observations:

You Look Fabulous: Mitt Romney was tan and studied, dropping facts about Iraq like he was trying to win a prize and whipping out "Altered Nuclear Transfer" in response to a question about stem cells. Even former HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson didn't have a fancy answer like that. For a candidate who is still introducing himself to voters, Romney hit that mark as well as a candidate can. But you get the feeling he may have had a polished apple under his podium for the moderator. Romney's problem is not that people think he's a dummy or messy, it's that people think he's too perfect and too calculating. He can make the answers sound right, but does he have a core and some grit? He didn't show that tonight, and I'm not sure—except by some fluke—that he or any other candidate could show such a thing in a debate (he'd probably look like he was trying too hard). Good thing for Romney he was more approachable on Jay Leno the night before. (His aides wish they'd gotten all that talk with Leno about vintage cars from the green room on tape, though.)