Credit: David S. Holloway/CNN

Let the games begin. I say “games,” because the race certainly has not started yet, and CNN tried to run Monday night’s GOP primary debate in New Hampshire like an episode of America’s Next Top Model. Sure, there are candidates and minor squabbles, but for the most part, the GOP realizes that it will take a unified effort to confront President Obama. The “debate” was closer to a cordial introduction to the candidate’s personalities, or, as the Atlantic called it, a “Manchester Lovefest.”

Classes are out for summer and grades are coming in. I rated each of the candidate’s performances, and provided an explanation for my mark. I do not have a Ph.D. in Reality Television (or whatever qualification you need to comment on the internet about politics), so I asked Professor John Pitney Jr., a government professor at Claremont McKenna College, for his opinions on each candidates performance.

The following grades are based only on the candidate’s performance in Monday night’s debate, NOT on previous records or their ideological views.

Republican presidential hopefuls (L-R) Rick Santorum (R-PA), Michelle Bachmann, Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, Tim Pawlenty and Herman Cain pose at the first New Hampshire debate of the 2012 campaign at St. Anslems College in Manchester, New Hampshire June 13, 2011. REUTERS/Joel Page

Michelle Bachmann: C+

Credit: Alan Colmes

Who: Minnesota Congresswoman

Quote: “In the last two hours, I’ve learned more about the goodness of the American people — from the question from John, his three sons that are serving in the Navy, his wonderful service.”

I know that she was declared the #winner of last night’s debate by the national news media, but that is only because everyone had such low expectations for her. Just because she was able to hide her craziness for one night, and come off as mediocre, does not by any stretch of the imagination mean she won. It’s like telling your college-aged kid that you’re proud of them for not dying of alcohol poisoning when they get back from school for the summer. That said, Bachmann’s personality, Tea Party rhetoric, and 23 foster kids attract a particular type of voter. If Sarah Palin joins the fray, however, let the race for craziest candidate begin.

Professor Pitney’s Grade: A-

“Bachmann gained ground.  She drove home her status as a tax lawyer and foster mom, which most people probably didn’t know.”

Newt Gingrich: B

Credit: Zip

Who: Former Speaker of the House of Representatives

Quote: “Take half of the current Department of Homeland Security bureaucracy in Washington, transplant it to Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico. You’ll have more than enough people to control the border.”

G-unit did pretty well last night, especially considering he probably had to prep all by himself. For those of you not following the race, last Thursday, a number of aides on Gingrich’s staff as well as his campaign manager suddenly resigned, reducing his chances of winning from almost none, to virtually none. Last night, however, he came off as experienced, knowledgeable, and earnest, which should probably be a baseline for candidacy, but you can’t have it all I guess…

Professor Pitney’s Grade: B

“Gingrich didn’t make any big gaffes but did not dazzle.  In light of his campaign’s troubles last week, he needed to be spectacular, and he wasn’t.  As a former college professor, he does best when talking for 60 minutes, not 60 seconds.”

Mitt Romney: A

GEOFF ROBINS/AFP/Getty Images

Who: Former Massachusetts Governor

Quote: “Any one of the people on this stage would be a better president than President Obama.”

Romney was in a completely different mind set. He did not engage with any of the other candidates, and it was obvious that he was already focused on President Obama. Romney avoided injury (although he need not worry because he passed universal health care in his state) and honestly was likable. He made jokes, announced the Bruins score before a commercial break (which sucked for those of us who TiVo’d the game), and made other gestures that showed that he does have a heart, fiscally-responsible experience and most importantly of all, a brain.

Professor Pitney’s Grade: A

“Romney did well.  He looked presidential and gave sharp answers.  He has a slight lead and probably widened it last night.”

Ron Paul: A

Who: Texas Congressman

Quote: “Free markets will give you 10 percent or 15 percent growth

or whatever and you will not have to turn it off because you think it’s going to cause inflation. It doesn’t work that way.”

AP Photo/Nick Wass

I’m sorry, but Ron Paul was awesome last night. The New Jersey

Newsroom (ironically) said it best, when they referred to the debate as “Ron Paul and the Pandering 6.” The merits of libertarianism can be debated at great lengths, but at least Ron Paul has an ideology and sticks to it. Contrary to pretty much every single other politician, Paul’s foreign policy, economic policy, and social policy all actually stem from his ideology – which became clear when CNN shifted the questions to social issues. Instead of trying to pick up the schizophrenic portion of right-wing voters that want no government involvement most of the time (unless it concerns an issue they care about like social security, Medicare, foreign policy, abortion, gay marriage… you get the idea) Ron Paul stuck to his (deregulated) libertarian guns.

Professor Pitney’s Grade: B+

“Ron Paul probably fared better among Republicans than he did 4 years ago.  In 2008, he was a sharp critic of Bush foreign policy, which got him jeers. Now he makes the same criticisms of President Obama foreign policy, which is more acceptable to a partisan audience.”

Tim Pawlenty: F-

Credit: Carrie Devorah / WENN [Photo via Newscom

Quote: “Senator Biden has been wrong about every major strategic decision in the modern history of the international conflict and military.”

I had heard optimistic things about Pawlenty, but I can’t understand how he made it this far. After watching him last night and promptly vomiting on my notes, I tried to figure out how he was so extraordinarily bad and wishy-washy that it fascinated me. This man has it all: between backing away from his critiques of Romney, speaking without saying anything, taking the most widely accepted position on an issue no matter what, and beginning every sentence with his credentials, it is clear now how he was elected. Unfortunately for T-Paw (as he refers to himself on his website), his first debate left most of us who didn’t know much about him with a bad taste in our mouths.

Professor Pitney’s Grade: B-

“Pawlenty did poorly.  In his answer on Romneycare, he tried to sound civil but ended up sounding evasive.  To the extent that the debate introduced Pawlenty to a wider audience, it was a bad first impression.”

Herman Cain: B-

Credit: UPI/Alexis C. Glenn

Who: Former CEO of Godfather’s Pizza

Quote: “To paraphrase my grandmother, with the situation in Libya and many of these other situations, they’re not simple situations. It’s a mess. It’s just an absolute mess.”

Cain did well. He struggled when pressured about his insensitive comments regarding religion, but I doubt that the people who might support him cared. He could have hammered home his Washington outsider status a little harder, but he definitely got the whole businessman problem-solver persona out there. He “kneaded” (sorry, I couldn’t stop myself) to be more inspiring then he was, however, and while he may gain steam and become this year’s Huckabee, he’s not a real contender.

Professor Pitney’s Grade: B-

“Cain stumbled over the Muslim question.  In the competition for tea party voters, Bachmann defeated him.”

Credit: Igor Volsky

Rick Santorum: D

Who: Former Senator from Pennsylvania

Quote: “I think the Tea Party is a great backstop for America. I love it when people hold up this Constitution and say we have to live by what our founders laid out for this country.”

Santorum was not memorable. I tried to think of something to write, and all that came to mind were feverish hand motions and the phrase “remarkably average.”

Professor Pitney’s Grade: B+

“Santorum came across as sincere but he didn’t break out of the pack.”

The whole debate was a letdown. If it revealed anything at all, it’s that the GOP candidates will need someone strong to join in the race, a double-dip in the economy, or Osama Bin Laden to rise from the grave if they want to compete with President Obama’s wit and oratory skills in the 2012 debates.

Want more articles by Nathan Falk? You may also enjoy his article on David Brooks’s visit to Scripps or his piece on the CMC Trailers

Robert Malley served as Director for Democracy, Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs under President Clinton. He is currently the Middle East and North Africa Program Director for the International Crisis group.

Michael Singh served as the Senior Director for Middle Eastern affairs under President Bush, and currently works as Managing Director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

The PSU and the Salvatori Center cosponsored the debate, which took place at Edmunds Ballroom on Pomona College’s campus at 7 pm. The PSU brought in Malley, while the Salvatori center brought Singh.

Michael Levine, PO ’11, one of the heads of the PSU who helped coordinate the event, noted that the debate was originally going to focus on the US/Israel relationship. Given the current situation in the Middle East, PSU decided to adjust the topic last minute.

Milia Fisher, PO ’13, a PSU director, acted as moderator and posed three questions to Malley and Singh.  The first two questions focused on the nature of the United States’ relationship with both Palestinians and Israelis and prompted additional discussion of U.S. policy toward the terrorist organizations of Hamas and Hezbollah.  The last question concerned the changing environment in the Middle East and how the United States should respond to the recent conflict.

Charles Johnson, CMC '11, directs a question to Robert Malley

Overall, the speakers agreed on their desired outcome for the Middle East. Both speakers concluded that a two state solution is necessary to achieve peace in Israel, and that the U.S. should play an essential role in achieving this peace.

Malley noted that, “You need a third party. The third party needs to know when to intervene and how.”

The speakers diverged, however, on how they felt the U.S. should interact with Hamas and Hezbollah. Singh asserted that the U.S. should not negotiate with Hamas, but should negotiate with other Palestinian groups, like the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) that recognizes the state of Israel and is not considered a terrorist group.

Malley disagreed, saying that “Principle is always infused with a degree of pragmatism.” He went on to say that it is impractical for the U.S. not to talk to Hamas, and the only way to move forward is to stop isolating Hamas.

Lastly, Malley and Singh spoke about current U.S. relations with the Middle East in general. Fisher, in her questioning, cited a statistic that says 85% of Arabs view the US unfavorably, and Malley noted that this isn’t a surprise.  He claimed that, since the U.S. does business with authoritative regimes, Arab citizens see Americans as hypocritical. Singh agreed, but also noted that the disdain for the U.S. comes from Europe as well, and part of it comes from being a superpower.

The panel lasted about an hour, at which point students were given the opportunity to line up and ask questions.

Overall, the debate received positive feedback. Na’ama Schwietzer, PO ’13, noted that “They did a good job of disagreeing in a way that was still interesting to listen to and productive.”

After the event, Singh remarked, “I thought it was a very stimulating discussion and I appreciated the stimulating questions and responses from students. I’m glad I came.”

To encourage the free exchange of ideas, the Forum has very few rules regarding comments on individual articles.  As a general rule, please be thoughtful, respectful and considerate when making comments.  We support debate over statements made in each article, but criticisms should be limited to the subject matter and arguments presented.

When commenting please DO NOT:

• Use coarse language
• Make derogatory comments toward individuals
• Impersonate other people
• Make libelous comments
• Be defamatory, indecent, vulgar or obscene, sexually explicit or sexually suggestive, racially, culturally, or ethnically offensive, sexist, homophobic, heterosexist, harmful, harassing, intimidating, threatening, hateful, malicious, objectionable, discriminatory, or abusive.

We reserve the right to remove any and all comments that violate this policy.  If you think a comment has violated this policy, please flag the comment or email us at forum@ascmc.org.  For additional information and our Rules of Conduct, please read the disclaimer on our About Us page.

Sign up on facebook here, and be sure to RSVP with the Ath, as well.

There will be three 20-minute debates, with each relying on two student debaters and one moderator from the faculty or administration. The student debaters will go head to head while moderators provide insight into the issue and give legitimacy to the discussion. It’ll be serious but entertaining debate.

The first debate will cover the expansion of the College to 1400 students. With the addition of Claremont Hall and other building projects in the works, the Board of Trustees is considering plans to make the student body bigger, possibly part of a larger effort to raise the visibility of CMC within the national rankings. But is this the best choice for CMC? Will the fundamental nature of the college change with a population increase? What elements of CMC’s character would be lost? Or improved? What’s the best way to proceed with the expansion?

The second debate will switch focus to current campus life: Should CMC change its alcohol policy? The role of alcohol in campus culture has been a long time issue for the college, since CMC remains a wet-campus. This policy, however, has come under fire in light of recent alcohol-related incidents, and the Dean of Students office has stated that “things have to change.” Do they? If so, how?

And for the final debate we will turn to a question that often goes overlooked, but seems to merit consideration: Is CMC male-dominated? The college abandoned its single sex admissions decades ago, and the name Claremont Men’s College only a few years later. But the college continues to be majority male, while outside CMC, women make up 57 percent of college students. Does this mean that CMC has a bias towards males? Do women have a different role on campus? Even if they do, does it even matter?

A full roster of debaters and moderators will be announced shortly. Stay tuned for updates, previews, and more.

Sign up here: http://bit.ly/athdebate2

This woman: she has words to say and we should listen to them. Because hey, nothing says “you live a sweet Life” like a Lady Fro and cob-webbed vagine. In other words, this middle-aged virgin is living the fucking dream.

We invite you to sign up.  Invite your friends! If nothing else, it’s a chance to see some familiar faces in the Athenaeum, while enjoying a good meal and drinking some wine.

What’s more, you could be one of those faces. You suggested the topics and voted on them– now we’re asking you to debate the issues.  This is your chance to stand on a Forum-provided soap box and share your thoughts on a relevant topic with a captive audience.  Just send us an email if you’re interested.

Since none of us can be serious for too long, there will be a second debate that night on a lighter topic.  The topic could be anything from, “Should Abhi Nemani get the three piece suit or the two piece?” to  “True or false: Fulbright applications suck the life out of anyone who attempts them?”  We’ll announce this topic on the night of the debate.

E-mail us (forum@ascmc.org) if you’re interested in speaking on Debate Night.  Tell us whatever you want– just your name and why you’re interested, a summary of your main points on the theme, or whether you’re excited for the Foam Party this Saturday. Depending upon response, the Forum will select speakers as the format allows.

On Monday, September 28, The Forum will hold Student Debate night at the Athenaeum. CMC has already proven itself as a environment that encourages intelligent discussion and debate– whether it’s online or during afternoon tea at the Ath — and students have proven themselves to be knowledgeable and passionate about national and international issues. Student Debate Night would further cultivate that atmosphere of lively discussion, but redirect it towards campus issues, an area less popular but just as important for students. The topic and speakers will come from YOU.

Suggest a campus issue for debate below. The possibilities are endless, but issues could include such topics as the Dartmouth Plan, admission policy, or general education requirements. We’ll take suggestions for a week.  An ASCMC committee will select the three best suggestions and open a poll on the Forum.  Students will vote for the issue they want to see torn to pieces on the Ath stage.

Once we announce the topic, we’ll ask you guys to come forward as speakers.

If you’d like to share your suggestion and get more feedback, post in the Comments Section after the submission form.

That they did.

The team of Charlie Sprague (CMC ‘10) and Raymond Lu (Pomona ’11) placed ninth. The teams of Cassie Gurrola (CMC ’11) and Holly Poole (Scripps ’09), Nick Hubbard (Pomona ’11) and Joe Witte (Pomona ’11), and Jacinth Sohi (CMC 11’) and Adriane Holter (Pitzer ’12) were ranked among the nation’s top twenty.

This tournament was held in the British Parliamentary (BP) debate format, the most popular style of debate internationally and the fastest growing debate style in the US.  Over 124 of the best teams from universities across the US and around the world entered the tournament, including both undergraduate and graduate students. The tournament was hosted by the University of Vermont in Burlington, Vermont.  The BP format resembles a structured political debate and has four teams of two speakers in each debate.  Two of the teams are asked to support a motion announced fifteen minutes before the debate begins and the other two teams stand in opposition to that motion.  Although each speaker delivers a seven minute speech, every team and speaker has a unique role in the debate.  The teams are ranked first through fourth in each round based on the substantive quality of their arguments and the effectiveness of their delivery.

Claremont student are trained to score well on all fronts by the Claremont College Debate Union, a 5C organization run by CMC’s Director of Forensics, John Meany. In the season leading up to the national championships, individual speakers and teams from the Claremont Colleges have distinguished themselves at national and international competitions.  For example, Charlie Sprague was the top speaker at two consecutive invitational tournaments leading up to the national championship; Holly Poole and Cassie Gurrola placed second at the Pan Pacific Championship; and Elizabeth Schmitz-Robinson CMC 11’ and Jaron Abelsohn CMC 11’ were semi-finalists at the national open.  The tournament also represented a continuation of the Debate Union’s impressive historical record: for 17 consecutive years, Claremont debaters have placed in the top ten in the nation.

We’re told the tournament experience produced a number of entertaining moments.  Holly Poole observed one of her fellow debaters threaten an airline representative and watched TSA retaliate by subjecting that debater to a special search.  Charlie Sprague and Raymond Lu were compelled to defend the motion, “This house would abandon stimulus packages for balanced budgets.”  This was a challenging position as it forced them to rationalize the disastrous economic policies of the currently reviled former President Herbert Hoover.  In another round concerning seal hunting, an unidentified debater made the audience erupt with laughter when she said that commercial hunters “harpoon the shit out of seals.”  The grand final round was a very impressive debate, which was won by an accomplished team from Harvard University.

All things considered, this was an impressive and entertaining performance by the Claremont College Debate Union. Well done, guys.

P.S. Refreshments (pizza?) will be served.

(Photo Credit: LA Times)