Because you demanded it . . . I have finally persuaded Obi-Wan Kenobi to weigh in on the state of the Republican presidential primary. Obi-Wan, a mysterious wise figure who has been around Republican politics longer than I have been alive, is not affiliated with any candidate, but since several candidates in the field have been around national politics a long time, he knows some of them quite well.
Jim: What did last night mean for Romney?
Obi-Wan: Even in the midst of heated disputes, the guy seems programmed. If an opponent challenged him during an answer, he would immediately revert to “Hey, this is my turn to talk, you aren’t allowed to interrupt” and try to show passion. He learned this after a campaign stop some while back when he got praised for showing some assertiveness with hecklers by lecturing them about his right to respond. But a presidential debate is different. These are your fellow contenders for the most important job in the world. They get some leeway. You have to come across as an engaged opponent, not an exasperated time-keeper. Mitt’s responses to criticism seemed robotic because they were. You could almost see the lights flashing as the computerized instructions kicked in: “When Challenged, Resort to Earlier Campaign-Trail Tactic That Won Praise.”
Jim: I’ve been very disappointed with Perry for much of his campaign, but I liked the new energy he showed us, at least in the early parts of last night’s debate. What do you think of him?
Obi-Wan: Look out for this guy, I’m telling you. When Romney kept insisting Perry let him talk and sounded whiney in doing it, the Texan finally looked at him and said, “Have at it.” So he uses a marvelous Southwest colloquialism to give Romney permission to proceed. That one may go down with Reagan’s “There you go again” to Carter. Never mind politics, American public life has not seen this kind of camera presence since maybe John Wayne. Men like him and women admire him. And he seems to be getting used to the debate format. On or off stage, he’s got a commanding and theatrical presence.
Jim: Wow. And Gingrich?
Obi-Wan: So we’re surprised that he’s the smartest and best debater? (Can somebody please go back and research the statements by pundits who said his campaign was over?) It may eventually come down to him and Perry, since Romney can’t really move his numbers and last night will eventually lower Mitt’s standing.
Jim: How about the rest of the field? Cain, Bachmann, Santorum, Paul?
Obi-Wan: Again, look at the theater here. Cain is the missionary and self-made legend, Bachmann the energetic legislative fighter, Santorum the bright graduate student as former officeholder, and Paul the smart (if slightly annoying) professorial type who’s got hold of some solid libertarian ideas about government. Mix them in with the other three and the GOP sure seems an exciting place to be. Talk about diversity!
Jim: Now, did I hear you correctly when you said recently that you think these debates are a “ten-strike” for Republicans?
Obi-Wan: Precisely. This is devastating to the “Gatekeeper Media Filter.” People who aren’t political junkies or activists — people who are new to politics — are not finding what Washington types tell them to expect. All this is just very different from the Huffington Post caricature of the party.
Jim: I’d like to believe that, but . . . can you prove it?
Obi-Wan: Irrefutably. (chuckling) Last night, David Gergen was delighting his CNN bosses by saying the debates were helping Obama. However, decades of systematic research by several noted scientific institutes have established that if Gergen makes an observation about the state of play in American politics, the opposite is always true. I invoke here “Gergen’s Law.”
the only thing that will suppress Republican Women voter turnout is Newt Gingrich. He will totally lose independent women. His nice debate does not erase the unConservative personal life he has lead, and the lives he destroyed. The liberal media will vet him if he is against Obama. Don't build him up. He disgusts me.
Yes, it matters. More importantly, he is known for going after Clinton about morals while he was diddling his aide while his wife was suffering from a major illness.
Gingrich is not a conservative.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYeah, Newt's a great debater, but his past personal life is what bothers me about him.
It was his first wife that was ill while he was cheating on her. He cheated on his second wife during the Clinton episode.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNewt's personal life is interesting. But he was not diddling his aide while his wife was suffering from a major illness. He was diddling his aide - while the second wife he diddled while his first was suffering from a major illness was doing just fine.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThat said, I far prefer Newt to Obama and he is up to third on my list.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSomeone like Newt Gingrich as President would be the type of miracle this country needs. For any baggage he has, he's got 100 times the amount of innovative, original, constructive, and well thought out ideas about how to get America and it's economy back to greatness.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGingrich is a personally flawed (just like the rest of us) sincere problem-solving conservative. I am tired of all the "Christian conservatives" who have decided that it is their job to play judge and jury over everyone else's lives - of course, everyone falls short. Unless Gingrich continues to cheat, it is up to those he sinned against to forgive him. It is up to the rest of us to decide what kind of job he'd do. Maybe he'll make a better president because he's made a few mistakes and learned from them.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSure Newt has enough baggage to warrant a flatbed for transport, but tell me you wouldn't want to watch him debate Obama for 7 3hr shellackings...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYeah, that would be fun. Too bad Newt will never make it to the general.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI can't believe how much people underestimate Newt Gingrich. And everyone's "brilliant" rebuttal to why he won't get elected is "baggage?" Well, that doesn't explain why Bill Clinton is still on of the most popular presidents, and if baggage is an issue then Barack Obama better watch out, cause he's got problems!
Don't kid yourself. Someone like Newt Gingrich as President would be the type of miracle this country needs, so stop undermining his candidacy with lame excuses like "he has baggage," because for any baggage he has, he's got 100 times the amount of innovative, original, constructive, and well thought out ideas about how to get America and it's economy back to greatness.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNewt is a great speaker, and very knowledgeable. However his "baggage" includes the couch appearance with Pelosi on AGW and his undermining of Ryan's plan on medicare. Sometimes Newt answers the narrow question, and hands a broad bat to the left to beat up fellow Republicans (the Ryan plan) other times he's just doesn't get it.
I wouldn't count him out, and he is getting traction, but he has a long history of statements in his career which will make devastating attack ads.
Not that it matters. The way things are going anyone on that stage capable of getting the nomination is going to beat Obama. Provided of course that we on the right unite behind the nominee.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNewt's baggage is really pretty minor. Compare others, like O's preacher etc. Bill Clinton? Has Monica L. changed the way people view Bill today. Not by much.
In the heat of the general election, Newt's "baggage" will be barely an issue.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYep, it's be fun right up to the time that Newt says something that he thought sounded smart at the time that turns out to have been really very dumb. And if you think that's not likely, you don't know Newt as well as you think.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYeah, I'd love to see Obi-Wan sell Newt to women voters. Or pretty much any voters with all that baggage. I think Obi's taken a few two many light-saber hits to the noggin.
He's right about Gingrich's debating skills, of course. And if those skills meant as much as Obi thinks, Newt would be top of the charts now. He ain't. Not even close. Not even close to close. There's a reason.
Obi is allergic to Romney, which clouds his aged vision. Mitt won the debate. Even Wayne Newton could see that. Perry did improve but from an extremely low level. And the Rickster (my candidate still, though I'm a diminishing breed) came out looking nasty, in the definitely bad sense.
Otherwise, Obi scatters random and unenlightening praise for the rest of the field. I think even he knows they're not gonna make it.
Maybe you need a new sage, Jim. Although he is right about Gergen.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseUm... yeah... no disrespect but when someone is talking about how exciting and diverse this field is, I think I understand why he's not affiliated with a candidate.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI respectfully disagree, Casey... Mitt didn't win the debate.
I feel sorry for Perry: In the previous debates, he was criticized for lacking energy; now he's being criticized for being nasty. I thought last night was Perry's best debate performance. Me and my buddies were saying that if Perry debated like that in the previous 4 debates, he would probably be up higher in the polls. That doesn't mean I believe Perry will turn things around in one debate performance, but at least we're not talking about how bad he sucked.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI really don't disgagree. I thought last night was Perry's best performance. Which is unfortunately very faint praise.
If the debate had ended before he got into the nasty immigration tangle with Romney, he would have had a really good night. But he came off looking, well, nasty and ill-informed in that spat, and then started to lose his way.
But overall he did improve. I don't think it will lead to any huge bounceback for him, but it was his most energetic outing so far. Should be enough for a little bump in the polls, I hope.
But John Wayne? Not quite.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePerry's attempted attack on Mitt about his employing an illegal worker will go down in the annals of political suicide tactics. Now eventually we may class it as a kamikaze attack because Mitt's admission that it was ludicrous that he would not deal with the issue when he was in an election race just may have blown a huge trustworthiness hole in the USS Romney, only time will tell.
In any event that came after,
- Romney expressed understanding about how Perry's lack of comportment stemmed from his failures in the previous two debates,
- Romney called attention to Perry's creation of a illegal immigration magnet with the $100K instate tuition credit,
- Romney called attention to the 60% growth in Texas's illegal population, compared to 0 growth in Florida and California,
- Romney reminded voters that Perry opposed E-verify
- Romney stated, without refutation, that earlier in his career Perry supported amnesty.
Perry did not lose his former support because of "bad debate performances", he lost it almost solely because of his position on instate tuition for illegals. In that one exchange Romney hung that albatross firmly back around Perry's neck. Any notion that Perry helped himself misses just how toxic that subject is with primary voters.
Romney took a lot of damage in that debate as well. He was eviscerated over RomneyCare and was reeling when Newt rolled out the particulars that on the merits demonstrated that RomneyCare was unsound from day one. Romney got so rattled he said that he got the idea for the mandate from Newt. Newt used that to successfully present Romney as a liar, who had to amend his statement.
I realize that punditry loved the apples and oranges exchange between Cain and Romney and view Cain as having taken hits over it. I suggest you reconsider. Romney came off as deliberately misleading when he attempted to blur the line between state and federal taxes.
It reflects rather badly on the pundit class, and a number of people on that stage, that they hold the average house hold in such low esteem that they appear to think that regular people can't balance their family budget. Every working person that I know is very aware of their take home pay and their bills. Everyone of them is capable of taking a pay stub, adding back in their current withholding for income tax and FICA applying a 9% reduction for the new tax and then adding a 9% sales tax as appropriate to their weekly/monthly expenditures and determining if they are better off. Regular voters are not confused by taxes. They are very aware of them as they struggle to make ends meet every day, and you may rest assured that any suggestion of tax changes causes this group to sit down and see how it effects their personal finances.
Perhaps the apples and oranges conversation was over the pundits' heads, but most of us understood Cain's point perfectly. To us Romney misrepresented the facts to attempt a cheap shot suitable for a sound bite.
Cain did not get hurt, Newt looked better, Romney and Perry got beat up. Romney is no longer inevitable.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseuncleFred's comments are very thoughtful. To them I would add that with the sole exception of Richard Nixon, no one in the television era has been elected who wasn't likable. Perry is not terribly likable. Romney is not "dislikable" but neither does he inspire likability. Gingrich too is not especially likable and will never get the women's vote.
The only likable candidate is Cain, but sadly, his inexperience and his inarticulateness on foreign policy makes him not quite ready for prime time. Remember, that Democrats can get away with things Republicans can't -- and that includes inexperience and gaffs.
Perry's immigration stance and Romney's global warming acceptance and his refusal to admit he was wrong on Romney-care are fatal flaws.
I simply can't understand why Romney hasn't said, "I thought I was doing the right thing; the economy was good and I felt that a single state could try the solution. But now that the returns are coming in and I see the multitude of flaws in my plan, I can say that it simply hasn't worked. This is not a flip-flop. It is a mature acknowledgment that when new facts arise, it is time to revise positions. That is why I oppose Obamacare. My own experience with what others call Romney-care are a strong reason for my now seeing why Obamacare must be repealed."
This would put the entire matter to rest. Why he won't or can't do that is beyond me and speaks to me of a stubbornness and rigidity that mars his character.
Sadly, all our best candidates are in "triple A" and our major leaguers are simply second rate.
It looks more and more (to my great regret) that Obama will be reelected. Not because he deserves it but because we can't present a real convincing alternative.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSorry but between Mitt and Newt exchange on the mandate the one who ended as a liar was Newt Gingrich who have to admit that he and the Heritage Foundation believed that a FEDERAL MANDATE was a good idea.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOn Perry: A presence like John Wayne? Really? Jim, love your blog and read it daily. But you need to find other republican insiders for some actual wisdom.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse