Romney had a tough start. Santorum had a very pointed question on his decision not to run for re-election in 2006, “Why did you bail out?” Romney responded with what Newt rightly called “pious baloney.” On this question, Romney simply can’t admit the truth—he didn’t run for re-election because he might have lost and, more importantly, he wanted to run for president. Romney absurdly characterized leaving office to run for another office as returning to the private sector. I’m not sure how much voters will be outraged by any of this. They probably assume every politician wants to run for office. But the exchange got to a certain falsity in Romney’s self-presentation that plays into more important doubts about his sincerity.
The other notable exchange came at the end between Romney and Newt on the Superpac ads. Here again, Romney was less than forthcoming. He said on the one hand that he hadn’t seen the ads and then immediately related some of the most damaging charges in them (carefully leaving out one of the most dubious ones, I believe). But he made the basic point that Newt has a lot of vulnerabilities and Newt came across as too whiny and peevish. One of Newt’s drawbacks as a debater is that his worst qualities come out when he’s on the attack; he soars the most when he’s not drawing any blood.
In general:
Romney was fine when not challenged and after the ferocious beginning that was the case for most of the debate.
Santorum continues to be strong—but is he standing out enough when the other candidates are performing well, too?
Gingrich is simply terrific when discussing policy and getting beneath the premises of the questions.
Perry may have gotten the best reaction of the debate in flawlessly naming the three cabinet agencies he wants to eliminate. He has benefited from being off to the side in these debates. There’s less pressure there and he can lump the field in all together without the need to engage with anyone in particular directly. His relatively strong performances last night and this morning may help him retain enough strength in South Carolina to play what I assume won’t be anything more than the spoiler role.
Is Huntsman showing enough movement that Romney finally feels the need to slap him down, or is it simply irritation? Huntsman acted as if he had been stewing all night over Romney’s attack on him last night for serving as Obama’s ambassador to China. With Huntsman, it’s all pious baloney all the time. He made out like he was hearing nothing but outrageousness, dishonesty, and hatefulness on stage all around him. His contingent in the audience either was extremely enthusiastic or under strict orders to clap at almost all his answers.
I think Romney may have wrapped up the nomination last night.
The MSNBC live internet feed sucked, almost as much as David Gregory sucks as an interviewer.
If Huntsman would have done the entire debate in Chinese would anyone have noticed?
Did I ever tell you how much I can't stand David Gregory?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe reason why Romney didn't run for reelection is simple, he was perceived as being too conservative by Massachusetts standards. The voters thought they were electing a technocrat that simply ran on the Republican platform, instead they had a Governor that was actually taking some conservative positions (like his attempt to preserve traditional marriage, vetoing the DREAM Act, etc.) The cat was out of the bag. Was some of this to appeal to conservatives in a Republican Presidential primary? Of course, isn't that a good thing?
It's a sort of Catch 22. Do conservatives simply not run at all in blue states, or when they win, do they not govern as conservatives so as to get reelected?
My guess is, if Romney could have done it all over again, he would have made Utah his home and springboard for office and would have been deemed the next Ronald Reagan.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"he was perceived as being too conservative by Massachusetts standards"
Then why didn't he say that? Instead of coming up with such an unconvincing lie?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe Huntsman plants in the audience were amusing and incredibly transparent. We can all look forward to Wednesday, when the insufferable Huntsman and what Rich rightly calls his "pious baloney" exit stage left.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCan't come soon enough. Good riddance, smarm-meister!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI wonder how many people feigning discontent about Romney not running for reelection, would have no problems with a Palin candidacy even after she quit in her first term and in a reliably conservative state?
With respect to Huntsman comments comparing his "service" to his sons, to this retired Marine, I found the comment insulting. Being an Ambassador - which is a POLITICAL appointment - is not anything like serving in uniform. I have literally spent years of my life separated from my family, eating horrible food, sleeping in miserable conditions, and occasionally being shot at. That's public service. Living in palatial accommodations, with a personal staff of dozens (even hundreds), surrounded by your family and earning $200K/annually with a big fat "retirement" vested after day one, is not public service, that's being served by the public.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt is amazing having watched this debate, to think someone of Lowry's intellect, would have consider Romney not running for reelection an issue.
It is absurd, completely absurd.
And if this is the offering which some are now selling as the ideal coming from Santorum, they have again embarrassed themselves. Americans are concerned with the future, especially the economy, etc. They want to know what these candidates will do, not some cheap Washington Political sniping about not running for reelection.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRomney's not running for re-election as Governor of Massachusetts is not in issue but the reason WHY he chose not to run for re-election IS an important issue.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"I wonder how many people feigning discontent about Romney not running for reelection, would have no problems with a Palin candidacy even after she quit in her first term and in a reliably conservative state?"
Just in case someone missed that the first time around.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWell said - Semper FI
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWell said, Semper FI
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRomney was being harrased tothe point where he couldn't do his job and was having his family bankrupted by nuisance lawsuits.
I wonder how many people notice the attempt of Romney supporters to find equivalencies where none exist.
Whatever it takes to carry the messiah over the line. Right.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMitt hurts himself when he does not answer an uncomfortable question directly. Of course tailor a short answer. But deal with it and move on. Mitt should say he was going to run for president and did not want to do that as governor.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI couldn't agree more. I think Romney has the ability and brains to offer much better answers to the attacks, responses that could devastate Newt especially. Instead Romney uses deflection and defenses that end up letting the charges stick in some people's minds. I can understand his desire to avoid flashes of anger, especially after he's kept so cool for so long, but he needs to denounce the Bain attacks firmly, speak clearly on not seeking reelection, and be clear about his position on Super PACs (i.e. it would be better to just allow unlimited, fully-disclosed contributions to actual campaigns).
I say all this as a committed Romney voter; I think though, that keeping the primary going for a while with multiple candidates is to his advantage and maybe that's why he responds the way he does (rather than clearly and forcefully).
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusethe thing that makes Romney so good is that he is running a professional campaign. he has terrific surrogates, who help him. he looks good sparring with whomever is attacking him unlike gingrich, whose angry inner-self makes him look downright ugly, and he retools his message. i guarantee that he will be ready with a better answer next time he is challenged with that point.
he's already tweeked his stump speech to talk about his wife's grandfather, a Welsh immigrant who was a coal miner and came to the US, a poor man, and the family worked hard, pooled their money so they could send one kid to college. he succeeded and the rest is history. oh, yeah and he mentions that his father was born in Mexico (wonder if he'll trot out some mexican relatives to try to win the latino vote) and didn't go to college but still became a successful businessman.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt is a pleasure to be able to enthusiastically agree with Mr. Lowry that Huntsman is indeed full of 'pious baloney.' Or as my sainted Mom would have phrased it: 'horse patooties.'
Thank you. I wish NRO had emphasized Huntsman's horse patootie qualities earlier though; perhaps before they wrote that now-famous editorial dismissing nearly all the conservative Presidential candidates, but sparing Romney and Huntsman.
I, too (like Mark Steyn?) really miss Michele Bachmann. Perhaps brains (like being female) are a handicap when running for the GOP Presidential nomination. Let's ask Professor Gingrich.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt is obvious, Mr. Lowry is viewing with a tainted vision.
Much like when he believed Gingrich won the first debate in Iowa, which proved entirely unattractive to see his Beltway Insider existence exposed in the spotlight. Ron Paul challenged Gingrich on his Fannie and Freddie graft, the next Monday Gingrich was offering anti-Capitalist nonsense sounding like Obama.
To suggest Romney took on "water" over why he did not run for the reelection in Mass, is yet another sign of not seeing things clearly. As if one is wishing to see something, and creates a fantasy.
* No Americans care if a Candidate did not run for reelection, just if they can handle the Presidency, win the General Election, and turn this mess around.
In this debate, again Romney showed he is the best on all of those questions. Romney again succeeds in another debate, winning the exchange.
Santorum on the other hand comes across far more petulant as he remains in the spotlight. He is a sincere Washington Politician, this is quite evident. Hardly the ideal some are trying so desperately to sell today.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHave to admit I didn't see this debate. In fact, I forgot all about it. After 487 debates it's hard to remember sometimes. But in response to Rich Lowry's...
"Santorum continues to be strong—but is he standing out enough when the other candidates are performing well, too?"
I'll repost a comment I left on the Spectator site...
"Today's latest Suffolk/7 News tracking poll: Romney 35, Paul 20, Huntsman 11, Gingrich 9, Santorum 8, Perry 1. External Link
At least Santorum will beat Perry. But a fifth-place finish for Santorum is not out of the question. Still, the Spectator [and National Review] can be happy that Romney's 35 is the lowest he's scored in any NH poll for a while.
Why anybody thinks Santorum will even be remotely competitive in libertarian New Hampshire is beyond me. I know the Spectator [and National Review] are in love with the guy - no gay marriage overtones intended - but come on, things are looking grim for the anti-birth-control crusader."
In other words, Santorum seems to be standing out with NH voters, all right. In exactly the wrong way.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusei think santorum has a chance (not for 1 or 2) because of the blue collar, catholic population in the state. for that audience, he is actually pretty good when talking about social issues. but on almost everything else, he is a lightweight -- intellectually, experience wise, and on his ability to communicate.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSantorum, Gingrich, and Perry have all known all along that they don't have a prayer of winning in New Hampshire. They just used those 2 debates to get a head start on South Carolina where their chances of winning are much better.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse