No one touched Romney. He was unflappable and knowledgeable. He again showed the right political instinct to want to address the struggles of the middle class, although his tax plan doesn’t do it. His China-bashing will probably play well in the Midwest, although it’s foolhardy on the merits. He consistently got applause. I remember one of the early debates when Romney was flying above the other candidates and Pawlenty — I think — attacked him and he declined to reply, saying “that’s fine.” He said the same thing tonight when Santorum went after him. After all the churning in the race, Romney is in the same basically comfortable place he was in several months ago.
Gingrich was on his game from the beginning when he let loose a ringing anti-Bernanke, anti-food stamps, anti-Alinsky answer. This was the Newt everyone thought we’d see before he got in the race. I thought he was much too irritable with the moderators, but a GOP audience probably doesn’t mind and Maria Bartiromo matched him unpleasantness for unpleasantness. The narrative about his rise will continue.
Cain was fun as always. He got off a couple of great lines and was helped by the ill-advised decision of the moderators to press him about the sexual harassment accusations in his forum. His frequent resort to 9-9-9 still gets laughs, although eventually the charm of this trope will wear thin. On substance, he clearly lacks the fluidity of a Romney or the depth of a Gingrich.
I thought Perry would get better after his first debate. I was wrong. I thought he couldn’t do worse than his last few debate performances. I was wrong. His blank moment on the three cabinet agencies was very uncomfortable to watch. It could happen to any of us, but having it happen to him, on this stage, was devastating. Perry passed on a couple of chances to hit Romney, so clearly his hope was to just skate through this debate, and he couldn’t manage it. It’s a shame for him, but will presumably help Gingrich and Cain.
To his credit, Santorum continued to be the only Republican willing to acknowledge and address the economic travails of people without a college degree. But he’s not as compelling as the other candidates, and there’s always one unfortunate moment in every debate where he feels he has to brag, in rapid-fire fashion, about all the wonderful things he’s done. Bachmann was basically a non-factor. Notably, she persists in arguing that people who aren’t paying federal income taxes aren’t participating fully in American life — it’s the reverse side of Elizabeth Warrenism. Huntsman was annoying. I find myself increasingly charmed by old Ron Paul.
I watched about ten mins, glad I didn't waste any more of my life. I would hate to work with or live with Jim Cramer. I hope that's an act because if not, he needs medication.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYeah, all of them are flawed. None of them are good enough. Wreck them all. We don't really want to win anyway.
We Republican politicians are much more comfortable sitting in the back of the halls of power, maybe getting coffee for our rulers now and then. Worked pretty well for us for decades, didn't it? We don't need the responsibility of authority. It gives us headaches. This way we can sit in the back and throw peanuts at the actors. It's a lot easier. And we'll still get those great Federal pensions when we retire whether we're in the minority or not, right?
Or whether the country is in ruins or not.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRomney did well, but not as well as other debates. Romney the primary candidate looks great, but still don't have confidence that Romney the Presidential Candidate or Romney the President would be remotely similar.
Newt looked good and had his unusual one-liners, but a rise in the polls will bring up some of the things he has done wrong, including an TV ad with Nancy Pelosi pimping for Al Gore's "We can tax it" program on global warming
Cain looked good. Great answer on the harassment question and he was able to strongly get back on message.
Ron Paul didn't have to talk about the cause of 9/11 so he looked very strong.
Santorum also has to whine about not getting asked questions in every debate.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHuntsman is sanctimonious as well as annoying
Agree on Bachmann
This so-called (bogus) "narrative" about the Gingrich "rise" is silly. With his background and inconsistent positions, he is going nowhere, mark my words -- no matter how much the media tries to put another candidate up after Perry/Cain's fall.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDoes Lowry just regurgitate his comments for each debate? Appearantly, Romney "shines" in every debate according to Rich. Regardless, it doesn't matter since it has become evident to anyone that NRO plans to regurgitate its ill-advised endorsement of RINO Romney from 2008. Sad.
Thought this was one of Romney's worst debates. Yeah, he was better than Perry, but evidently a tree stump is better than Perry in debating. Not that impressed with Gingrich either, who seemed flustered at several points in the debate.
Cain and Bachmann did better than expected, as did Ron Paul.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNot sure about Lowry, but it is pretty clear that you come here and say the same thing over and over and over again.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThanks for the summary.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRomney and Gingrich were steady as always. Cain wasn't bad, though again light on substance. Perry continues to immolate in new and spectacular ways.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseClearly a cardboard cut out of Romney would get the stamp of approval from some. When did Mitt Romney become untouchable with "conservatives"?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRomney is not "substance"...he is mainstream Washington/politician and he glued to the status quo---sure he can talk, but always remember what is back of that talk! Cain was the winner tonite in light of all that has happened---if one was to re-watch the debate you will see most answers saying what he already said, and has said about the economy, flat and fair taxation, Chilean model of soc. security, etc.----I do enjoy all the candidates and any would be light years better than Obama...but it is clear the story so far has been Cain, good or bad...I believe this man will be vindicated.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAll were true to form. Romney smoothly delivered his memorized lines, and put on his supercilious "ok, whatever" face when unable to directly address a challenge. Perry continues to think that posture and attitude is a sufficient substitute for knowledge and logic. Cain is lovable, and much smarter than his communication skills can reveal, but somewhere along the line his unquestionable mathematical reasoning skills must tell him that actual displays of erudition are necessary (Reagan was also highly underestimated to his advantage both as a candidate and when dealing with foreign leaders). Still, even though Cain appears to need a foreign policy crash course, I have no doubt that he would be a reliable and sound decision maker and strategist as president. Bachmann's heart is in the right place, but she has not found a way to recover from earlier self-inflicted wounds. Santorum's grating demeanor suggests that he thinks anyone who disagrees with him is a moral degenerate, and I want him to explain his endorsement of Arlen Specter (some sins cannot be easily forgiven). Huntsman is painful to listen to. I so much want to love Ron Paul, but the POTUS cannot believe that we deserve to be attacked by terrorists. He must retract that and confess to hyperbole before I can overlook that. My POTUS must be an unrepentent jingoist at heart. Gingrich really impresses me, and I would love to see him grind Obama to dust in a debate. Yet, there is this concern that he may be too smart for his own good, like another Woodrow Wilson bent on imposing his abstract vision onto a world that has other plans. The White House is not a debate club or a think tank. Of course, compared to the disaster we have now, even a disappointing Gingrich would be a huge improvement.
My favorites: Gingrich, with Cain a close second and Romney a distant third. I could vote for Romney only assuming Obama is the opponent.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo... Romney it is then? Huzzah, I suppose. I had high hopes for Perry but that was clearly some very wishful thinking. Cain isn't going to go the distance either.
It's time for the underachieving candidates to step aside now and start to show some party unity before we completely self destruct. Its getting out of hand, and I feel like the only real winner of these so-called debates is Obama.
We have a very long, very hard fight ahead of us, and it is entirely possible to grab defeat from the jaws of victory here.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI thought Romney was really good, especially in the first half.
Newt gave a couple of really good answers, but I realized to night when he doesn't have answer he attacks the questioner. He is not as smart or solid as he pretends. It is almost like his depth is pretended... Like he is really good at taking tests but in a real life situation he couldn't hack it. I found him insufferably smug and arrogant.
Cain, well he actually doesn't know very much. I find it really odd that he is so well liked. I liked him too until this week, but now I don't know why I liked him. He is really sort of repulsive.
I loved Bachmann. I'd like to see her on the short list for VP.
Paul, you know he almost makes it, but just not quite.
The other two were so forgettable, who cares.
About Romney though. When Perry was floundering, Mitt reached out to help him. I think Mitt actually likes Perry personally. And he hated to see what happened. Of course Perry hates Mitt's guts. Perry isn't a nice person. But Mitt tried to feed him an answer, two answers, tried to make the moment end quickly.
Romney is a really nice guy. I don't understand why everyone hates him.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe reason people are misinformed about Mitt Romney is that most of what people know is from TV news shows. Voters don't spend the time to learn about the candidates from reading. They form opinions from what they hear about the candidates and their opinions become the opinions of a reporter they've heard onTV. I think most of the Republican candidates are better than the way they are portrayed. I would probably like Obama better if I could bring myself to read about him. I know I'm probably a hypocrite
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNewt came off a bit more snarky than in past debates, but I do not believe it is because he does not have an answer. This is a campaign tactic, much like the tactic that defends the candidates on stage and refocuses on Obama.
In this particular exchange, he chastised first, then gave the bullet-pointed 30 second answer afterwards.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNewt without the snark is like Sponge Bob without the square pants.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNice!
I'm going to use that one.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGlad they stopped providing scripts for Obama ads in the general eleciton.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThey finally started to run collectively against Obama.
Was in LA and several committed liberals, young upwardly mobile Obama
voters in 08, are talking Newt. They love the lecture.
So...maybe I paid closer attn to Newt tonite, but what jumped out at me was
$300,000 consulting fee from Fannie/Freddy???? To me that was more explosive than Perry's forgiveable lapse ( especially he forgot Energy Dept; everyone knows he's all about energy, so in the end that's not that big a deal.)
But how will Newt, who was pretty angered by the $300,000 question, explain
away a)exorbitantly charging a tax payer funded entity; b)appearance of being a lobbyist;
and c) that he couldn't persuade them to take what he claims was sound advice or d)
maybe worse, that he advised them to do what they did which led to plunging our economy.
I for one want more answers on that question and hope it gets some traction. He didn't
handle it well.
Newt placed otherwise; Romney always shows, but he aint a winner yet.
I'd agree with Rich's assessment, though I don't see the big deal about Perry forgetting which agency to ditch. I mean let me count for you the number of flubs the President makes and he has a huge staff, writers, and a teletubbie always with him!!!
Only thing is, Newt has a lot - a lot - of baggage. Perhaps not too much to outweigh an Obama who's one big bag all by himself. Cain is a good guy, and he may be as conservative as the afternoon sun is hot. But he's only been a CEO of a consumer goods company. Sorry, but in today's complicated world - that's just not enough. That doesn't kill the concept of the citizen-politician. I merely would suggest that the citizen politician get training in some elective office other than the Presidency. Look what voting in an inexperienced nobody has done to this country over the past 3 years!@
The other thing is if Romney is continuing to be one of the debate stars, smooth, bright, etc. - it won't be enough if he can't get over 25% of registered Republicans. There's a long way to go. My guess is Mitt isn't answering a lot now as he's doing the minimum to win the nomination and not providing the Dems bulletin board material with which to hit him with next year - after he's won the nomination. My guess is he'll talk Rubio into being the VP at which time Obama will have to rethink whether he wants to keep the 'ol "foot in mouth" Biden or perhaps dump him for Hillary.
There's still a long way to go.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRomney shines again, vividly.
No doubt about it, no question left whatsoever about who is the best offering for the Presidency on the Stage - or the field (even those undeclared).
It will be a typical irony, if Romney gets the Nomination, which he should, wins the Presidency, which he should, and actually prove to be a very sound President returning the Nation back to sanity.
Thus again, the fashionable amongst us would have more evidence that they should indeed retire completely.
But besides the political gaming on the sound side, one must hope this 2012 as the Midterm of 2010, we truly begin to finally put the nail in the coffin of the mindless Democratic Partisan disaster ruining all.
We can grow more sound conservative Candidates for the future, but we simply must never, never, never allow a Democratic Partisan to return to the White House, fill the Speakers position, or control the Majority in the Senate.
Time to turn the page, put the entire DNC - Clinton/Carter/Obama fiasco on the dust heap of history for the "common good".
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse