Everything seems very serious, very important, very consequential now. The earlier debates — months ago — were looser. The eight or nine candidates would bounce onto the stage. Romney would greet Bachmann with a big mwah. Cain would smile brightly.
The atmosphere was almost festive.
But now we’ve gotten down to the nitty-gritty — crunch time.
Newt immediately links himself to Reagan. Remember when pundits swore the Gipper couldn’t win? he says. He also points out that Reagan’s economic program was labeled “voodoo economics.”
Advertisement
That was Bush 41’s — the future Bush 41’s — line, of course. But the 1980 Republican vice-presidential nominee always had an answer to that. His answer went something like this, as I recall:
What I said was, if Governor Reagan thought he could cut taxes, increase military spending, and balance the budget, without cutting any domestic spending, why, that would be voodoo economics. But then the governor made it clear that he indeed intended to deal with the domestic side.
Ancient history, I realize. (Maybe Professor Hanson should be teaching this, it’s so old.) (Actually, VDH is equally good on the ancient and the right-now.)
I know this isn’t a newsflash, but, man, is Newt a good rhetorician. Such a good talker. Extraordinary.
When his advisers left him, at the beginning of the campaign, they complained, “He doesn’t think he has to do anything. He doesn’t think he has to work. He thinks he can just show up at the debates, dominate them, and win the nomination.”
Well . . .
Newt says he will not go to the White House merely to “manage the decline.” An excellent line.
The old COS-ers used to accuse Bob Dole of being “the tax collector of the welfare state.” (COS-ers were members of the Conservative Opportunity Society, a free-market congressional group.)
Smart of Mitt to say “influence peddler” — to accuse Newt of being an influence peddler. Skirts the issue of whether he was technically a lobbyist.
When Mitt brags about himself, and criticizes Gingrich, he does it very, very badly. I mean, both of those things. He is lousy in those two modes: bragging and criticizing.
Actually, Mitt is nagging Newt — picking at him — more than criticizing him.
I have to say, Mitt looks small, and Newt big. For the first time (in my view), Newt looks mature and Mitt juvenile. For the first time, Newt looks the more presidential.
Just an impression, of course.
Santorum is really, really good when he talks about the fight he waged in 2006 — the campaign he waged that wound up losing by a million points. He stood up for Social Security reform, he stood up for the Iraq War, he stood up for George W. Bush, all in a year when those stands were electoral poison.
This is my favorite Santorum moment, from any debate.
Brian Williams doesn’t know what “begging the question” means, but then, neither do most people . . .
He also says “weekend” the British way — with the accent on the second syllable — which is interesting.
Newt makes himself out to be a coalition builder who is the soul of reason! Fun.
I’ve never seen Mitt such a stumblebum, on a debate stage. This is a low, I believe (and not a terribly low low — not Perry-esque).
Newt is in his statesman mode, a good mode for him (although he won South Carolina, by a landslide, in angry operatic mode, didn’t he?).
Newt makes his work for Freddie Mac seem quite reasonable.
He is also skillful on the issue of Medicare Part D — not an ideologue, someone who wants reasonable and helpful government, not stupid and smothering government.
People play a trick on Romney: They keep citing his dad to him. I wish he’d say, “You know, I appreciate your repeated invocations of my dad, but, you know? I admire him even more than you might. And I also knew him better. So why don’t you cut it out?”
People tried to do the same thing with the first Bush: They played gotcha against him, using his dad (the late senator Prescott). I hated that.
Mitt is asked, “What would you do about a half a million people coming from Cuba?” He never answers. I can’t really blame him, though: That question requires serious study and thought.
Bill Buckley used to say, “That question is like Peking duck: Requires 24 hours’ notice.”
Really? I think the new system is much better. I like that the oldest comments are at the top - it's a bit silly to read up as we move from original comment to original comment, but then read down as we read replies. And I like the button at the bottom to load more comments rather than the old system of having pages. The old system was especially annoying as clicking on a new page of comments would reload at the top of the article, and then you'd still have to click to open the comments...and a reply to one comment might not even be on the same page as the one it was a reply to.
No matter how well Gingrich debates and no matter how many excellent lines he throws out for the amusement and entertainment of the audience, mature is not a word that comes to mind when I think of the man whose professional and personal failings are the things of which soap operas are made. He is a pudgy, cartoonish man, obsessed with his self-proclaimed greatness, who boosts his self-esteem by cheating on his current wife in pursuit of the next. Just an impression, of course.
Hi, Jenna--the one thing that keeps me giving Newt a second look is his command of the issues. In that regard, he is second to none among the current crop of candidates, and he comes across as very "mature," in comparison, notwithstanding the negatives that you (correctly) point out.
Well, whether one is "pudgy" is irrelevant to the issue of being a good president. As fare as having an ego, one would be hard-pressed to find a politician whose ego is not enormous. Yes, Gingrich has a high opinion of himself but, to me, he does not come across as anywhere near as arrogant as Obama. I can imagine having hours of discussions with Gingrich about many topics. He seems interested in learning something new every day and expanding his knowledge. Obama, on the other hand, would be interesting only if one wants to talk about sports. Beyond that, he does not want to hear anyone else's opinion; he expects everyone to believe what he believes simply because he believes it.
I think so far Newt's answers seem better and Romney looks like he can't believe he's losing to this guy.
Two points:
The worst moment in this debate for me for Romney was when he gloated and thought he had a gotcha moment at Gingrich, when he asserted that if Newt wanted capital gains taxes to be zero, then Mitt's taxes would go from 15% to zero. Anyone who is proud to say that it is worse to pay zero taxes than 15% is not someone I want as my president. Okay, in the last debate Romney took Rush's advice to use it as a teaching moment and instead of being defensive about his wealth said he is not ashamed of becoming rich. It's what he wants all Americans to have the opportunity to do and no one gave him that money, he earned it. Good. Then he goes and ruins that by this moment. If he watches, he may wish he could take that back. I certainly wish he hadn't done that, but it was instinctive and that is what worries me about Romney.
I know many think Newt can't beat Obama and no one seems to want to run with Newt, at least those are the rumors, but there is a reason he is winning. The conservatives want someone who is unashamed of being conservative. Now Newt has to disavow his past romance with global warming and such. He has to be a true strong conservative and not try to woo the left with that nonsense.
I don't believe Cubans, will all want to come here. I believe if they have a chance at freedom in their own country, that would be exciting to them. And what's to stop some Cuban exiles from going back home eventually? Anyway, I wish them the opportunity to have freedom at last.
My eyes starting glazing over after the first eight minutes of the "let's you and him fight" debate format. Too many moderators get bogged down in minutiae-while the audience is fast asleep. The biggest loser--NBC. Second biggest loser--the audience. Romney's attack dog mode screams desperate and projects the image of a pooch in some serious need of dental attention attempting to bite the big bad wolf! In the meantime, the media has been struck by lightning multiple times, yet they continue to dance and sing in the rain! How totally bizarre! Is it something in the water--or whatever they're ingesting?
I watched most of the first half of the debate, and I have to agree with Jay: Romney looked pale and weak. He did not seem to understand the gist of the questions, and his answers were tepid and unpresidential. His attacks on Gingrich came across as insincere and peevish. Santorum seemed to be channeling Reagan, to the extent that he can; even his small body movements reminded me of Reagan's. Both he and Gingrich were much stronger than Romney. Paul was just along for the ride, as usual. I liked the fact that they kept the crowd out of this one; it meant that the candidates had to craft their answers for the whole viewership, and not just play to the people in the room. It was more serious and less of a circus. Brian Williams did a good job managing the debate, although he seemed unprepared at times -- e.g., when he accused Santorum of attacking Romney on Bain (which he had not done). All in all, a surprisingly good showing from NBC.
I think I agree with the other commentators that disagree with you. I thought Romney did well and Newt got hit pretty hard on some of his baggage.
By the way about that Conservative record, he talked about volunteering for Goldwater or going to a Goldwater rally or something in 64 in the debate. If so he must have been a double agent. External Link Gingrich described himself as a Rockefeller Republican most of his years in office including during Reagan's years in office. He is the guy who declared the era of Reagan over, sat on the couch with Nancy to do a cap and trade ad, he did a forum with Hillary where he endorsed federal mandates, he lobbied in favor of GSE's and expanding Medicare, he has called the Roosevelt's the greatest presidents of the 20th century, he is obsessed with the technocratic utopian futurism of the Toffler's whose book he wrote a forward to, and he endorsed Dede Scozzafava. The guy is very good at talking the Conservative language, he probably takes notes as he listens to Glenn Beck, he knows what riles up the base, but the positions he takes and where he has been politically is to the left of Santorum and Romney, it was to the left of Huntsman when he was in the race. It proves too many people in our party are often more about hearing buzz words than substance.
Well stated. I have never warmed to Gingrich because of the reasons you have stated. As Speaker in the 90's he led a GOP House that was certainly more conservative than the previous 40 years of DEM House, but that is actually a low bar, being more conservative than Tip, etc. Before even considering the details, only some of which Richard has listed, I was always wary of Gingrich because I think he is the consumate inside-the-beltway operative. A 'politician' in the worst sense of the word. I have been open to all the candidates, even given all the Gingrich NOT-conservative positions above. But his anti-capitalist attack on Bain was the last straw.
He thinks his debating skills will beat Obama. First off, he will have to debate Obama, not the media. Even if he mops the floor with Obama, it will matter little. Few people watch debates - mostly all political junkies with their votes already decided. Most of the electorate will have the "winner" described to them by the MSM & whom do you think that will be? As has been said often, Obama cannot run on his record, so he will run against the GOP nominee and the DEMS & their SuperPacs & the media will tear Newt's record (& personal life) to shreds.
Yeah, if Romney debates Obama, then the MSM will declare Romney the winner, in contrast with an Obama/Gingrich debate.
And the Dems and their super pacs wont touch Romney's record. That's why it doesn't matter that Romney sounds like a human rubber ball when defending it.
If the nominee is Romney, then the MSM and the Dems will go easy.
But Richard: if you are not supportive of Newt because of past policy positions then how can you favor Romney and his past policy positions (abortion, etc) ? At least Newt has said that it was dumb of him to sit on the couch with Nancy Pelosi. To me, both Newt and Mitt are not core conservatives - they've adjusted their positions to suit the political demands at the time. But I will give Newt the benefit of the doubt just because he was willing to say he was dumb to .... Romney just sounds more like the professional politician when trying to defend past positions and of course, don't even ask him about Romneycare.
Now we know where Jay Nordlinger stands. Did we watch the same debate?
Now something I know about and I guess Jay doesn't -- the 90 rounds of golf. I'm a moderately passionate golfer. If I get 25 rounds in in a season I'm lucky. And I'm semi-retired. The young guys like my son in law who have a demanding job and a family are lucky to get in 5 or 6. Playing a round of golf shoots the day as far as really getting anything done. When I was working full blast in a pretty demanding job I was working all the time and had to sacrifice some pleasures. This man is President of the United States for God's sake - supposedly the most demanding job in the world. He's 50 years old. Can't he let it go for 4 years??? The guy isn't WORKING!!!
Newt immediately links himself to Reagan. Remember when pundits swore the Gipper couldn’t win? he says. He also points out that Reagan’s economic program was labeled “voodoo economics.”
