The first big loser tonight was national security. Once again, there was almost no discussion of the critical issues the candidates would face as commander in chief — and there probably would have been no discussion at all, had Gingrich not declared the Palestinians a made-up people. The only candidate to make a substantive foreign-policy point was Rick Perry, when he criticized Obama for allowing Iran to recover our lost drone. Nothing on China, Iran, Iraq, Europe. Pathetic.
The second big loser tonight was Mitt Romney. This was his weakest performance yet. He got into a fight with Rick Perry for no reason. He brought up Gardasil again. Gardasil? His offer of a $10,000 bet backfired badly. Who bets $10,000? Not only did he use the line, he doubled down when his campaign sent out an email attacking Perry for not taking the bet. So it was not just a bad off-the-cuff comment, it was a planned attack. Yikes. That gaffe will haunt him for a long time to come. But more important, why is he fighting with Perry? Newt’s the one who has passed him in the polls. And Romney failed to draw blood from Newt — the person he needs to bring down if he is to win the nomination.
Newt was the winner for the same reasons Romney won the earlier debates: No one knocked him off his perch. He did very well. His line about how Romney would have been a career politician if he had not lost to Ted Kennedy was priceless. He parried the infidelity question with a humble answer about how he’s needed forgiveness. And he turned his gaffe on the Palestinians into a debate win. Romney tried to go after him by saying it was irresponsible and that Romney would be more cautious, declaring “I’m not a bomb thrower.” Newt deftly replied: “I’m a Reaganite,” citing Reagan’s declaration that the Soviet Union was an “evil empire.” The message GOP voters took away was: Newt is a bold conservative like Reagan, Romney is a cautious moderate. That’s a win for Newt.
The other surprise was Rick Perry, who had his best debate yet. Indeed, Perry may well have been the best candidate on the stage. He’s positioned himself to get a second look if Gingrich self-destructs, and the 75 percent of the GOP electorate that refuses to support Romney goes looking for another champion.
We all wanted more foreign policy offerings, for certain.
But I could not disagree with Mr. Thiessen more. His insight is simply way off. It is really a very distorted view of the evening.
Newt was loudly booed for his comment about the Kennedy Race. It was petty and ugly. Romney's answer was attractive, regarding his dreams of being a Pro-Football player, then able again to remind all he has the sound Private Sector experience to help turn the Nation around.
The focus on Newt is not good for him. His hubris and Washington Beltway Insider status is vivid. All of the Candidates besides Newt referenced the folly of the Washington Swamp - which is Gingrich's entire entity.
Newt repeatedly took it on the chin, including a broadside from Ron Paul publicly questioning his taking graft from Fannie and Freddie. Newt had absolutely no answers for any on his "lobby" game. And Newt's denials about his embrace of a Federal Mandate, Amnesty, even Cap and Trade, were simply very poor.
Romney's challenge over having a sound, reasoned, stable, President was very effective. So was his offering on economics, as the Private Sector background with the serious CEO ability is very influential, compared to the Washington Beltway alternative.
Mr. Thiessen is even misreading the exchange on Newt's vivid "bomb thrower" problem. Mr. Gingrich exposed himself yet again with a major gaff. He said he was speaking as an "historian" - this was a classic mistake. It is the same excuse Newt made when he was caught taking Fannie and Feddie money. Then he changed completely trying to hide behind the legend of Reagan. The problem is, the Cold War with the Soviets is an absurd comparison to the situation with Israel. Even Ron Paul correctly commented on the needless offering coming from Newt, creating more problems.
Sorry Mr. Thiessen, we know many are biased with the fashion. It is clear the superficial will focus on the bet Romney tried to make with Perry, over the substance of the debate itself. Even the idea Perry was distorting the facts. Of course, conservatives don't obsess with the superficial.
Romney again showed he is without a doubt, the strongest, most sound, serious, capable, proven for the Presidency.
Newt is showing further he will head all for disaster in 2012.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI agree with this comment. Mr. Thiessen's view that Gingrich won is not what I saw or how I reacted to the exchanges. Gingrich seemed petty and smug most of the night. He said little except try to explain away his provocative statement on the Palestinians (which frankly from that view point could easily be said about Israel also) by invoking Reagan. (reminds me of the Bentsen's comment about Quayle -- Gingrich is no Reagan).
After having stated that he would stay positive, Gingrich was the one who attacked Romney with a petty comment about the loss to Kennedy and the instant reaction from the crowd, which wasn't a particularly pro-Romney crowed showed it. As Old Fan writes, Romney's retort was funny and gracious and made a good point.
Gingrich may win Iowa but he didn't win the debate. In fact, I think this was his worst debate of the year.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYour comment is right on target. It would seem the main stream liberal biased media has once again tried to distort the context of the debate for their own purposes. It seems obvious to me that in the haste for the tea perty conservatives to find a candidate to rally around so as to fight against the so called "establishments" choice of Romney, they have been prodded and herded into the Gingrich support group. Not only do they not seem to realize that they've become easy prey for Obama's campaign team, but Gingrich seems to have lost his desire to criticize the debate moderators and talk about how everyone on the stage would be a great alternative to Obama. Where has Mr. Magnanimus gone? Gingrich doesn't seem to mind the "gotcha" questions when he perceives it helping him, now does he? Before the debate the headlines said that Gingrich wanted to be relentlessly positive...but the wheels fell off when he disingenuously tried to fabricate what Romney's future would have been had he beat Ted Kennedy in 1994. Gingrich seemed to be operating at his typical frequency of high voltage sound bites for his momentary pleasure, always at someone elses expense because Gingrich can't take the heat of being a lifetime Washington beltway deal maker all alone.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI agree with everything you typed. I'll also say that the 10K bet brouhaha today is just silly. My family has experienced unemployment this year so I should be especially sensitive to that comment, but it didn't even register with me. I was surprised the left wing media was trying to make it into a big deal. In fact, despite not having a million dollars, it's the amount I suggest to someone in a bet when I'm positive I'm right. "I'll bet you a million dollars". I guess I'm out of touch too.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI don't think so, I think the American people are tired of endless war in the Middle East. Having a president that would deliberately inflame them is not going to sell to anyone but the staunchest of hawks.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThiessen's 'take' on the debate was quite accurate.
Old Fan, if your intent is to pump up Romney and pump down Gingrich - and it so obviously is - you're in danger of shooting yourself in the foot. Both Romney and Gingrich had some good at bats, and some whiffs. That's how it always is. To contend at every debate ad nauseum that your man batted 1000% and everyone else batted zero is not compelling, nor effective, nor accurate.
Your constant diatribes against anyone 'not Romney' are making your commentary invisible to most of the readers here.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRomney was a disaster.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIs Old"Romney"Fan still posting? I hadn't noticed.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNewt-Romney = Big Washington-Big Wall Street. This is what got us in this mess.
Rick Perry is the only convictional constitutional conservative that has a PROVEN RECORD of executive leadership that has created JOBS in this economy. He served as Captain in the U S Air Force. His convictions are genuine and his instincts are conservative and he has the PROVEN RECORD of successful experience.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIsn't it a bit early to be saying who won or did not? I thought all the other candidates confronted the viewers with the litany of problems with Newt. But to say Newt won because he didn't go into a rage or start sputtering when confronted is a leap. GIve it a week or two to see if doubts creep into voters minds as they continue to be reminded of these things.
It may well be that the voters ignore this laundry list and make him the nominee.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNewt-Romney = Big Washington-Big Wall Street. This is exactly what got us into this mess.
Rick Perry is the only PROVEN CONVICTIONAL CONSISTENT CONSERVATIVE. He has created an atmosphere for job creation in Texas. Texas under Perry has created 40% of all the jobs created in the US in the last two years. He understands the 10th Amendment. Less power in Washington, more liberty for Americans. Under his leadership, Texas has passed tort reform, and less regulation that has caused businesses to flock to Texas bring their jobs with them.
Perry has a very successful 10 year record in Texas and he understand the issues and the solutions that this country desperately needs.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe point about the "invented" Palestinians is that Gingrich spoke forcefully about speaking the truth in foreign policy, while Romney and others were supporting staying silent in the face of lies or outright lying as part of American foreign policy. That is a debate that Newt has to win.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNational Review must have watched a different debate.......the FACT is Romney won his 12th debate in a row.
GingRich had a devastating performance hanging on and over his debate stand all night. The optics were very bad for GingRICH.
The only BOOS were directed at Gingrich who took a cheap shot at Romney regarding the silly Ted Kennedy bit.
Yep the crowd BOOED Gingrich for that...............I suggest people who didn't watch the debate watch it.........because this "story" from the National Review is just that a STORY
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI was there and there were some boos but alot of people were saying NEWT! It was a valid point.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think the impressions of political pros rarely reflect those of most voters although when endlessly repeated by the media, they inevitably have an effect a day or two later.
I think Newt's "you lost to Teddy" point likely was seen by most voters as nasty, not clever. Romney did lose points by mixing it up with Perry and betting him ten grand. Bachmann's pounding on "Newt Romney" likely had an impact on conservative Iowa voters by driving home the point that Newt is every bit as moderate as Mitt. Paul and the others piling on is likely to reinforce that, a net minus for Newt since Romney was already regarded as a moderate. Newt parried the marriage vow issue in the only way he could (since he's been doing it for six months, did anyone really think he would get rattled?), but at least some values voters are going to have second thoughts after seeing five people with stable marriages of 21 to 42 years -- and Newt.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseABC confirmed after the debate from BOTH printings of the book by
reading verbatim, showing that Perry was a bald faced liar. He made this claim
before in another debate. You would think the "Christian" candidate
would be embarrassed to be a pathological liar. Gotta side with Romney on
the truth. He is not a perfect candidate, but not the liar here. It is true that Romney's book had an edit, but that is as far as it goes, neither edition advocated the plan for all of the US. Rick
was pathetic as usual except when he called a man's integrity into
question if he was not faithful to his marriage vows. Newt was squirming
like an earthworm on a hot rock. Camera was dead on him at the time. So
funny! Thanks for that moment Rick. Always good for a laugh. Just wish he had worn his "Brokeback" jacket to the debate.
As one analyst said only the rich or those who bet on a SURE thing put
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuseup $10,000 Since Romney only took $1.00 a year for salary as Mass.
governor and none at all for the Winter Olympics, had Perry accepted,
then Romney would have surely offered the winnings to the winners
favorite charity.
Santorum was right when he took down Newt saying you treat an ally differently than an adversary. The Soviet Union was an adversary. Reagan even bluffed them on the Star Wars defense. It is so different with a friend. Kind of like talking to your best friend before you try to date his ex. Better do it if you have hopes of keeping your best friend, Newt. I heard Gingrich had already asked Monica if she would like her old "job" back while he looks for number 4.
Viciously biased debate against Gingrich. aeven though the moderators were encouraging the candidates to take cheap shots at Newt, he still excelled. I wonder if the establishment will continue to assail Newt, and how much of an attempt they'll make to build up other candidates in hopes of eating away at Gingrich's votes.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRick Perry had another "third thing" moment -- He kept saying "there are three things" and then proceeded to name only two. He should just forget about numbers.
Go Newt!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou are misinformed. Perry did name the third choice that Obama had regarding the downed drone.
Perry said that Obama could have had the drone destroyed or retrieved but he made the worse choice and the Iranians have the drone.
It was understood that the worse choice was to let the Iranians get the drone.
Then he said that 'the president is the problem not something that Newt Gingrich said' (about the Palestinians).
Perry is getting better with each debate! And he's the only Washington outsider left and the most consistent conservative!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhen it first seemed possible that Newt would join the race for the GOP nomination, my thought was that he would be far and away the best president of any of the candidates, but that he probably couldn't control his mouth enough to secure the nomination. Somewhere in the course of becoming a 68-year-old grandfather, he seems to have developed just enough discipline to pull it off.
He also has enough discipline to refuse to be distracted by attempts to reduce him to 10-second sound bites. Instead, he makes audiences listen to his explanations, which almost always make perfect sense. So, when everyone attacks him for characterizing the "Palestinians" as a made-up people, he calmly explains why they are just that. The British colonial rulers used the term "Palestinians" to refer to the Jews who lived there and were agitating for independence so they could reestablish the 4000-year-old nation of Israel. No Arab ever called himself a "Palestinian" until Yasser Arafat started using it for his Palestinian Liberation Organization in the 1970s, and even then the word referred to the geographic territory. The population were referred to as Palestinian Arabs, only later shortened to "Palestinians."
It's been a long time since I could be enthusiastic about anything to do with our politics, but I am eagerly hoping for a chance to watch Newt rip Obama (sans Teleprompter) to inarticulate shreds in one-to-one debates. I would love to see a President Gingrich undo Obama's catastrophic presidency in his first week in office.
But everyone who hopes to eject Obama from our White House before he finishes destroying our country has to keep in mind Reagan's Eleventh Commandment. If it's Romney, if it's Bachmann, if it's Perry, if it's Santorum -- God help us, even if it's Ron Paul who wins the GOP nomination, work your heart out to elect him. It's our absolute last chance to save our Constitution and our Republic.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse