To use his own colloquialism, there is no question but that Mitt Romney won this debate. And he showed something new as well — serious chops in quick sparring and debating skill one on one. He was quick and effective against Herman Cain on the state-tax issue, Rick Perry on several issues (most effectively, at the end, judging someone on their past), and Newt Gingrich on the issue of the health-care mandate’s origins. It was a stellar performance. I am yet to be convinced he’s the inevitable nominee but one cannot gainsay his debating skills, especially compared with the others.
Rick Perry did not overcome his debating-skills deficit. He came out of the box in his opening statement with a negative jab that seemed wrong for the moment and went downhill from there. One simply cannot look uninterested at best and throw jabs that don’t land at worst, especially when it is clear the strategy is to debate (and campaign) negatively.
Rick Santorum got more time tonight than in other debates — to his credit and the electorate’s benefit. A smart observer of politics told me a few months back that when you look at Santorum on the issues, e.g., what he’s not afraid to stand up for, what he’s willing to bring up when nobody else will, his depth of knowledge, and his consistent record of conservatism, “Rick Santorum is the Republican candidate the movement has said it has wanted for about 20 years now.” Somehow the movement has not seen that this year, but that sentiment was rejustified tonight.
I don’t know how many primary voters saw tonight’s debate, but if the answer is “a lot,” I would be surprised if Newt Gingrich doesn’t see a bump in his numbers as well. He has been consistently clever and surprisingly non-negative in these debates. And tonight was his best showing yet.
It’s very difficult not to like Herman Cain — his cheerfulness is practically infectious. But this seemed about the fourth time in as many months he’s had to backtrack on a serious claim once he’s been confronted on it. Tonight it was on negotiating hostages for terrorists. Finally, the bloom may be coming off his 9-9-9 plan. He cannot continue to maintain it is “simple” and “transparent” if he cannot answer questions about its effects without referring people to an analysis on his website. If there is a simple and convincing answer (or even a complex and convincing answer) to the question about its effects on the poor, he has yet to give it.
Tonight goes to Romney, Santorum, and Gingrich.
Santorum?! I say that like Jim Mora says, "Playoffs?!"
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseExternal Link
Santorum is a lot like Reagan is you subtract charm and add shrill. And I don't believe for a minute he would not have been a TARP supporter had he not been absolutely, shamefully crushed in the 2006 PA senate race.
Romney: competent but unlikeable.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePerry: wider awake this time, but still not that good.
Cain: short on specifics but much more likeable than anyone else on the stage.
Bachmann: forced and fake, pandering to the slightest desire of the Tea Party, no matter how unrealistic.
Gingrich: smart but grouchy.
Huntsman: absent--hooray!
Rick "I endorsed specter over twomey" Santorum comes off as an SNL spoof of a presidential candidate.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Santorum is a lot like Reagan is you subtract charm and add shrill."
I think there's a LOT of truth to that.
Santorum is a weird guy. Sometimes, he can be very, very good - like that answer where he brought up the importance of family. That was a very genuine and I think powerful moment - and yes, Reaganesque. But, as you said, he is WAY to shrill WAY too often.
I have never really thought about this before, but if either Romney or Perry secured the nomination, Santorum might make sense as a VP.
Then again, his 2006 18-point loss might not indicate that he wouldn't have any chance of bringing Pennsylvania home for the GOP, so he might not be worth it at all.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseA particularly condescending moment was when Romney put his hand on Perry's shoulder during a heated moment. That was simply a power move to try to subordinate Perry. I really don't care for Romney and certainly don't trust him.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseA particularly condescending moment was when Romney put his hand on Perry's shoulder during a heated moment. That was simply a power move to try to subordinate Perry. I really don't care for Romney and certainly don't trust him.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm considering voting for Obama...if we're going off the cliff, I want a Democrat driving the bus, not a fake Republican(or is this now what a Republican is). Catastrophe is on the way, and we trot out convictionless, unscrupulous Romney to stave it off. Good grief.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou and my husband are kindred spirits in this regard. He'll vote for Obama before he votes for Romney. I'm undecided - probably will write in someone just so I don't waste my vote.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNot to be argumentative, but really, I'm curious. Why would you really vote for Obama? Especially not so much due to his economic record which is atrocious, but rather what he's doing to America. It is no accident that we are as divided as we've ever been. It is no accident that liberties are being eviscerated by the EPA, NLRB, and other regulatory predators. It is no accident that we now have TSA and other intrusive government intervention when such would never have been allowed (without major protest) by a Republican President. It is no accident that we have had more global military engagement WITHOUT Congressional consultation and approval than we have in the past few years.
Let his economic ignorance and socialistic goals be forgotten, how can you possibly approve of the way he is destroying the very liberty and freedom upon which this country's life is based? What is it you see I don't.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI agree that voting for Obama seems like a "bite off your nose" choice, but the arguments you list here are illogical and just plain wrong. The TSA started under Bush. The EPA is no more intrusive now than it has always been. And Obama, for all his faults, has drawn DOWN the global military engagements of his predecessor.
There are many salient and honest charges to be made against Obama, but resorting to inaccurate hyperbole doesn't help. It just make you look like a partisan hack.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThough I would never vote for Obama, I have to agree with you on Romney. Just because he has a ready answer for everything, many time disingenuous or even dishonest, that doesn't make him right. He will never carry the conservative argument for us. I'm afraid we've made all this progress and have our best chance to put a real conservative in the White House and we are going to blow it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSeriously. These seemingly endless debates become more and more meaningless as the days go on. Yes we know Romney can debate. Yes, its inevitable that another debate will go on, and the wonky guys at NRO will declare Romney yet again the winner.
Romney's basically been a professional debater for the past 6 years. Basically, ever since he's been out of a job. You'd expect him to be good at this type of thing. However, being the best debater may win you props with the glasses and calculator crowd, but it doesn't necessarily mean you have the social and diplomatic skills to get things accomplished.
Perhaps, instead of debates, we should be taking a better look at past records and future plans.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLeibsohn should disclose that he was actually hired by the Santorum campaign at one point. And that he has hyped Romney non-stop in NRO posts going back to 2007.
I don't think anyone "won" tonights debate. Romney and Perry argued like little children and both looked petty. Gingrich was a lot weaker than ususal. Santorum and Cain did OK, but was not as strong as previous debates.
If I had to objectivley pick someone who I thought did well, I have to say Bachmann and Ron Paul. Both performed better than I expected. And I say this a supporter of neither candidate.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSigh.
When will you beltway types get it through your thick skulls that we are NOT electing a debater-in-chief. This isn't a horse race. This isn't a realty show for pundits. This isn't your March Madness. We are electing (hiring) a person who can handle the most difficult management job on earth.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGreat captcha..."pyrrhic victory." That's what we'll have if Romney wins the primaries. Can someone please explain to me why so many conservative and NRO pundits appear to have taken leave of their senses and are supporting Obama Lite? Absent campaign promises, exactly what in Romney's record shows him to be a conservative?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think Santorum and Gingrich got the edge tonight, although Newt didn't get enough swings at the plate. It was good to see Romney "take the glove off" in offering rebuttals to the various attacks. In my view, this may be the beginning of the end of the Cain campaign. He was unable to defend the simple 9-9-9 plan by using the apples or oranges comparison. His tax plan fails for the simple reason that voters will simply add local sales taxes with the new federal sales tax and see a huge tax increase. Moreover, Cain was unable to address Bachman's concerns that the corporate rate of 9% is at VAT. Cain should have said that he is simply replacing a 35% corporate tax rate with a 9% rate. I don't think he really understands the nuances of his plan.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think Santorum and Gingrich got the edge tonight, although Newt didn't get enough swings at the plate. It was good to see Romney "take the glove off" in offering rebuttals to the various attacks. In my view, this may be the beginning of the end of the Cain campaign. He was unable to defend the simple 9-9-9 plan by using the apples or oranges comparison. His tax plan fails for the simple reason that voters will simply add local sales taxes with the new federal sales tax and see a huge tax increase. Moreover, Cain was unable to address Bachman's concerns that the corporate rate of 9% is at VAT. Cain should have said that he is simply replacing a 35% corporate tax rate with a 9% rate. I don't think he really understands the nuances of his plan.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYes, Santorum is a passionate, full-spectrum conservative. Unfortunately, as others here have noted, he too often comes off as obnoxious. In his defense, part of this is a function of being a lower-tier candidate who has to be assertive in order to secure screen time. But if his candidacy is going to gain some steam, he needs to appear more amiable on the debate stage.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse“Newt… did the best[tonight]… and would clobber Barack Obama in any debate.” — Sarah Palin
On Greta, it seemed that Palin all but endorsed Gingrich tonight. Could a Palin endorsement be a dramatic tide changer for this?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIndeed, without a doubt Romney is the clear winner yet again. Much like in 2008, when all the Public Service offerings paled in comparison to the Free Market product - with McCain, Rudy, Huckabee, etc., resorting to gang up on Romney out of pure incompetence.
It gets to the point, if Romney is not the Nominee, being clearly the best for the enormous challenges ahead, one has to wonder about the voters (especially after the mindless selection of the unaccomplished Beltway Celebrity who was well past his prime and held such an unpleasant temperament in 2008 who was destined to lose).
Romney is clearly the best offering, for not only the General in 2012 or the actual job of handling the difficult task of the Presidency - dealing with the mess Democratic Partisans have created.
The bias, bigotry, self destructive nature of the fashion should take a step back, and review their blindness.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse