Mitt lost the Bigfoot vote, and perhaps the felons-who-are-voting vote, but batted away the Bain and super-PAC attacks with ease and delivered some superb general-election answers. Newt regained ground — and then gave it back. Meanwhile, Rick Santorum made steady progress — after the felons stuff, which just doesn’t make any sense to me at all. (In eleven years with a nationally syndicated talk show, I don’t recall the subject ever coming up, so it simply cannot be salient in any meaningful way.)
The biggest loser of the night was Ron Paul, who gave his supporters many reasons for deserting him as just too far out of the mainstream to comfortably expend a protest vote. Paul suffers whenever the talk turns to foreign affairs, which — thanks to the able moderating of Bret Baier — it did at key points. Santorum also undressed Paul on gun rights, and opposing the liability protections puts Paul in the category of defending a Second Amendment which would protect only guns that wouldn’t be made because of tort-law machinations of the trial bar.
Romney revealed that he will make his tax return public in April, timed to a general-election strategy that he is clearly running, and running successfully. The New York Times’ data wizard Nate Silver put the probability of Romney’s nomination at 98 percent today, and Baptist pastor Robert Jeffress said on my show tonight the Romney nomination is “inevitable.” To stop such a strong tide flowing requires not just the good performances turned in by Gingrich, Perry, and Santorum, it would also require at least one of the three to falter to create room for growth by one of the other two to offset the bump Romney expects to gain from Huntsman voters coming his way. That didn’t happen tonight. Romney won by not losing, a fact that may be recognized by enough on-the-fence voters (who want to support the winner) to improve his numbers heading into the last debate. His best answers were on the continuing threat from jihadists, on searching out and killing our enemies, and on the correctness of the detention provisions, but he did fine throughout — though some in the Twitterverse thought him caught out on the felon-vote exchange. (Really, how many South Carolina GOP primary voters care about that?)
The clock is running out on everyone but Romney, and the Romney lead didn’t diminish tonight.
Minor memo to all debate organizers: Instead of starting with the process/political questions, start with the war-and-peace questions, the 9/11 questions, and the Iran questions. These are the presidential questions and they will build audience, not lose it.
There has been at least one commenter in every single debate who has said Ron Paul lost. It would be nice if people could separate their personal feelings from their political analyses.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHugh's personal feelings *are* his political analyses--there is literally nothing that Romney could do that would have Hugh saying he lost the debate.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThat Mr. Hewitt thinks debate moderators should start with foreign policy questions instead of economic questions I think nicely illustrates how out of touch Mr. Hewitt is.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseEver wonder why you never see Hugh Hewitt & Jennifer Rubin in the same room? Because there can be only one completely shameless, transparent shill in the universe.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIndeed Mr. Hewitt, Mr. Romney did very well again.
His answers on a number of questions were outstanding.
A number of Candidates had some good moments.
We all lost a little, lacking the more essential target on Mr. Obama's failure.
However, Perry, Gingrich, Santorum, etc., do look increasingly desperate to knock down Mr. Romney, and they just are not successful.
Romney handles the challenge very well.
The silence in the room experienced when Newt was addressing his populist - leftist "looting" attacks on Romney via Bain, was quite evident. Gingrich even made one wonder if he is not breaking the law, with some suggestion the SuperPAC providing the dreadful Michael Moore styled film was providing Mr. Romney with a list of questions to 'clarify the record'. It was weak, and seemed to follow the old Democratic Partisan line to slander, then demand the libeled to produce evidence which proves innocence.
Romney was sound.
Santorum still has a petulance problem, and his willingness to dump the Prescription Drug Plan under the bus is evidence of a 17 year old Washington Politician. Ron Paul's humorous offering which suggested he wanted to run longer ads against Santorum if he could, listing the numerous problems with Rick being the ideal was affective. Paul was able to remind the audience Rick is far from the image he is selling, by mentioning the earmarks, the raising of the debt ceiling, even the bizarre Santorum opposition to "Right to Work".
It is hard to understand why Mr. Perry is still in the Race, really. He does better, but still not a worthy offering to be on the Stage.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIs there anything more predictable then Hugh Hewitts analysis of a debate, goes like this; Romney is masterful, clearly he's masterful in debates, clearly he won, isn't "Team Romney" masterfully excuting there strategy for Obama in the general election. Oh by the way did I mention that he is masterful.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGreat comments Hugh. Bit of a snag though, the audience I think wasn't privy to the blinders your wearing. Be sure to hand them back in when your done making ignorant commentary.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe clear loser is Hugh Hewitt, who allowed his prejudices to prevent him from listening to or learning from a much better man.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI don'r see why you analysts have trouble understanding the "felons" matter. At issue was Romney's distortion of Santorum's stance on felon voting, and his hypocrisy in Massachusetts. You'll note that when pinned down he apologised both during the debate and in the spin room afterward.
Romney had a bad first half, and his second half was saved only by an excess of flag-waving. Too bad he hasn't sent a couple sons into the Navy like his new endorser, candidate Snark.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"All is well! All is well!"
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseChip Diller
Animal House
Mr. Hewitt, I must point out that while the Nate Silver column you refer to was headlined "National Polls Suggest Romney Is Overwhelming Favorite for G.O.P. Nomination", the sentence in which the phrase "98 percent" appeared was in fact this one: "I don’t know that I’d go so far as to say that Mr. Romney has a 98 percent chance of winning the nomination."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseExternal Link
I'm convinced Perry is still in so that Romney in contrast looks more
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusemoderate in order to attract independents who are paying attention
to this primary season.
Like Reality TV, these debates are seeming more and more
staged to get to the end game which is Romney.
No surprises; only Ron Paul didn't get the memo; but he's a
natural to provide contrast and quench the rumors that the
GOP is all hawk.
Romney stabilized as the one to beat.
Newt is like ordering Flambe for dessert; lots of flash but a disappointment.
Santorum voted for trigger locks and increased gun registration. Paul voted against a federal precedent covering all guns in the United States. It isn't hard to see which candidate truly upholds the Second Amendment
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHewitt's pathetic pandering for Romney has been going on for six years. So predictable.
Romney stunk. Gingrich fed racist red meat to the racist Republican base. It was disgusting.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou know who this helps?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"The New York Times’ data wizard Nate Silver put the probability of Romney’s nomination at 98 percent today"
The NYT? Really? Is this the paper of record for Romney fans? Maybe that explains why they're such fans of Mitt--progressives love the NYT.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseUmmm, Willard did NOT say he would release his tax returns in April. He said that was most likely when he would be asked to release them and then, maybe, he would, time would tell. It was an embarrassing display of an evasive non-answer.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWho cares whether or not Romney releases his tax returns? Is that a constitutional requirement to be President. Mr. O didn't release his birth certificate, nor did anyone in authority press him to do so. Mitt's taxes are his own business, just as mine are my own business. All Romney's return will tell us is that he is wealthy. Wow! Who knew?? I think it is time, and past time, for "We the People" to get out of the proctology business and focus on the character, the values, and the vision of the candidate.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt is spin to say Mitt Romney had a great or even good night at the debate. It was Newt's evening. But for Mitt Romney fans, he did not commit any Perryish gaffes, so I do not see this debate stopping Mitt Romney winning South Carolina. Newt has his own problems: External Link
Which of course he brought on himself. A good debate performance does not off set the prior damage he did to himself.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou know it was a bad night for Slick Willard when Hugh Hewitt terms his performance as "steady." Right, Hugh. As "steady" as the answer Willard gave to (maybe? possibly?) release his tax return. "Uhhh, errr, uhhh...after Super Tuesday." Look, we know you have President Romney books to sell, so why insult the NRO audience with your phony, biased "analysis"? Just go post on Jen Rubin's blog.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse