First debate overview: A bunch of GOP colleagues get together to criticize President Obama

President Obama was the big loser in Monday night's New Hampshire Republican debate, the first with the frontrunner.

Obama, of course, wasn't there. The Democrat and his wife were on opposite sides of the country doing -- guess what? -- a packet of political fundraisers. She was in Los Angeles rounding up Hollywood cash and he was in Miami for a trio of moola events, en route to another fundraiser in Puerto Rico today.

In New Hampshire the existing field of seven Republicans had different missions going into the 120-minute rhetorical tussle. There was a bothersome hectic air about the show. Being TV, host John King was constantly stressing time, time, time, as if there weren't 14 months until the convention and 512 days until the 2012 election. And who cares if Anderson Cooper's show starts late?

So the candidates had a whole 60 seconds to explain various stands plus 30-second responses. Any depth was accidental. (The full two-hour transcript is available here. Good luck with that.)

For Rick Santorum, Herman Cain, Tim Pawlenty and Michele Bachmann, it was....

...a chance to introduce themselves to a national TV audience, or at least those Americans choosing to watch a low-rated cable news channel on a summer evening when they'll have interminable opportunities to watch/read/listen more later, when others like Jon Huntsman may join in.

Bachmann took the opportunity to basically announce her candidacy and, in case you missed it all three times she said it, the Minnesota representative is a former tax litigation attorney, who has given birth to five children and raised 23 foster children in her home.

Pawlenty, who's new to this league, looked sincere but less comfortable than he will down the road. Ron Paul was, well, Ron Paul, no doubt delighting libertarian fans with his black-and-white stands against overseas military bases, for instance. Fact is, the entire Republican field has moved in his direction in some areas like the overpowering size of the federal government now.

Newt Gingrich, trying to relaunch his stumbling campaign, was sharp, pointed and surprisingly brief for a former speaker; it served him well. He drew applause a few times, as did Pawlenty and Paul.

Romney's ridden this circuit before and looked the most poised and presidential, even plopped in center stage. And he got a good chance to differentiate his Massachusetts health care plan from what the GOP calls Obamacare.

There were some fluffs. Romney caught himself starting to talk about supporting the Taliban in Afghanistan. Paul seemed to imply that Iraq and Afghanistan share a border. And Gingrich dropped the word million when describing 20 illegal immigrants.

One striking sense from this initial encounter is how distinctly more conservative is the tone this time over 2007-08, especially in matters fiscal.

Although a new Gallup Poll reveals that Republicans are more interested this time in picking a winner than in finding an ideal ideological soulmate.

However, instead of the much-hyped targeting of frontrunner Romney by the trailing pack of ambitious sharpshooters, GOP collegiality ruled. The new guy Pawlenty even declined to confront Romney over what he has termed 'Obamneycare' elsewhere.

Probably wise moves by all on this first practice outing. They all agreed any of them would be better than the current guy. There'll be plenty of time for pecking to death later. Although Republicans not nattering at each other does not fit the unchallenged Obama's playbook of looking serenely presidential while these GOP nobodies squabble.  

The Republicans were also united on life beginning at conception and ending with natural death and on the economic failures of Obama, his serial lack of leadership on jobs, spending cuts and the deficit/debt and his overreaching drive to extend federal powers with a belief that Washington knows best.

Predictably, the avuncular, 76-year-old Paul was against all foreign U.S. military involvement, said he'd stop bombing just about everywhere as it's not making us any friends, as if the explosives are targeted at pals. Santorum noted some foreign involvement was necessary to create more security at home.

For his first two years Obama has received strong support from Republicans for his Afghan military actions (including two troop surges), which began under President George W. Bush in the aftermath of 9/11.

But that support could be crumbling among the GOP's 2012 competitors. Obama's unprovoked attacks on Libya and inability to define a clear U.S. national interest there drew criticism from Bachmann, among others.

And while Romney did talk about a national security interest in denying al Qaeda safe haven in Afghanistan, he may have signaled an approaching sea change by firmly noting that American troops can't be fighting revolutions for other countries.

RELATED:

Mitt Romney surges as GOP debates open

Sarah Palin imagines a letter to her family from God

Guess what, Sarah Palin was right about Paul Revere warning the British

-- Andrew Malcolm

Don't forget to follow The Ticket via Twitter alerts of each new Ticket item. Or click this: @latimestot. Our Facebook Like page is over here. We're also available on Kindle. Use the ReTweet buttons above to share any item with family and friends.

Photo: CNN; Emmanuel Dunand / AFP / Getty Images.

Comments

[Hollywood4Cain]

Don’t underestimate the Cain Train, friends. Although the format of last night's debate didn't allow him to shine, his star is still rising and I think Americans will like what they hear as they get to know him better. America is desperate for a change of course, before Obama ruins us.

Check out this humorous little bit of Hollywood trickery that pits a stuttering, stammering Barack Obama against Herman Cain as they debate the merits of health care reform. Barack Obama’s worst nightmare, indeed!

http://www.youtube.com/user/Hollywood4Cain#p/a/u/1/WoXwM-suu4s

[carlos]

statement for a war monger...attack, attack, attack! forget fixing the economy

[Great Golf Strategies]

If the Democrats are for the poor and out to help the welfare state as the media likes to tell us then something is very wrong and does not make sense. Democrats had full control of both Houses for nearly 40 years until 1994, in that time they had JFK, LBJ, Carter and Clinton. 16 years of full Democratic control. Obama had two years of full control and one year with a super filibuster proof majority. Simply put if everyone voted party lines they could have passed any legislation they wanted. Actions speak, you can preach and say what you want but both parties are for the rich because they themselves are rich. The 1964 civil rights bill was unsuccessfully held up by two Senate Democrats, Robert Byrd who passed not long ago tied up the Senate for like 60 days trying to filibuster and block passage of the bill. They mustered enough votes to override his filibuster with 80% Republican voting to pass the bill and 61% Dem. voting to pass the House bill and 82% rep. 69% Dem. in the Senate. Hardly the party of the poor and minorities. Republican or Democrat, they are all out to help the rich, we need to take away all their perks and you will see some real progress on helping the working class and the poor instead of the rich people and coffers who give them all money so they will vote to help them get even richer.