For GOP presidential debaters, the 17th time seems to have been the charm. Remember all the derisive comments about previous encounters? “The circus has come to town!” sneered skeptical pundits, or, “It’s the political equivalent of the cantina scene in Star Wars!”
This time, no more sneering, no more dismissal. Three of the four remaining candidates on the stage — Romney, Gingrich and, yes, Ron Paul — looked and sounded credibly presidential and they all advanced their candidacies. Congressman Paul in particular delivered the strongest performance in his career — and may make me regret having designated him “Dr. Demento” on my radio show. Sure, he’s still crotchety and eccentric, but with his slower delivery (which he explicitly acknowledged in the course of the evening) and his good-humored demeanor he came across this time like a lovable grandpa rather than a crazy uncle generally confined to the attic. On every issue, Dr. Paul provided persuasive and thoughtful answers. Fortunately for him, the questioning almost entirely avoided foreign policy.
Both Romney and Gingrich (the two obvious frontrunners) seemed especially formidable — with Newt more human and sympathetic (especially when defending himself against challenges on his dismal marital history) and far less bombastic than ever before, and Romney projecting passion, confidence, and affability more than ever before. In particular, he left behind the sometimes tentative, halting responses in Monday’s debate, though he still needs to provide a date certain (before the end of February, certainly) for releasing his tax information.
The big loser: Rick Santorum, whose insufferably sanctimonious demeanor answered all questions about why social conservatives have begun to coalesce around Newt Gingrich rather than the former Pennsylvania senator. His decision to issue smug, full-bore attacks on every one of his rivals backfired badly. He ended up playing the role of skunk at the garden party, more eager to snicker at opponents than to make an emotional connection with the electorate. Any chance for Santorum to reverse recently plummeting poll numbers vanished with this debate. Paul, as always, made clear that he cared most about his small-government ideals and advancing his notion of constitutionalism; Romney and Gingrich showed a near-obsessive (and appropriate) focus on defeating Obama; but Santorum concentrated on showing that his fellow contenders didn’t count as “conviction conservatives” and that he boasted the purest record of them all.
The public doesn’t care primarily about finding the “true conservative”; the people want somebody who can come to Washington to clean house, to fix the mess, and to get the government functioning more acceptably again. As decent and admirable as he may be, that somebody won’t be Rick Santorum.
And meanwhile, did anyone other than late-night comedians lament the absence of Rick Perry?
— Michael Medved, a nationally syndicated talk-radio host, is author of The 5 Big Lies about American Business.
Medved must have watched an old debate from the summer.
The big loser was Santorum? Because he took it to the other candidates?
And social conservatives are rallying behind Newt? Was that inference based on the Texas gathering over the weekend, or on Dobson's endorsement today.
I watched the tweeter feed above and there were multiple times in the debate when ALL the NRO crowd complimented a Santorum answer.
Of course, Medved wanted McCain from the very get-go in 2008, so that says a lot.
There's no doubt I root for Santorum over Newt around here - but if Rick had stunk I certainly would admit it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou hit the nail on the head. Santorum looked like a whiney brat rolling his eyes and sighing. He wouldn't even look Romney in the eyes. All Santorum could talk about was himself -- how HE grew up, how HE made it to the final four, how HE can win (No you can't Rick. As an aside, we threw you out in PA, so no you can't win PA) Nobody cares about you Rick, they want you to fix their problems.
The best moment, however, was when Ron Paul told Rick he wasn't even thinking about him when he answered and he was too sensitive. OUCH! That was hilarious and put the snotty brat in his place. This is a three man race now: the liberty movement v. establishment Romney v. the anti-Romney.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"insufferably sanctimonious demeanor"
So true...
So very true.
Rick Santorum just does not have ability to project a nature which endears, he simply is far too peevish. His 17 years in Washington are shining through. Santorum loses more credibility, trying to portray the MA Health Care Reform as "government run" - it isn't.
Either the former Arlen Specter Ally cannot tell the difference between a State Level Mandate - Regulation and real Government Run - Public Sector offering, or Rick is a liar. Either way it shows the same type of self serving dysfunction we encountered with Newt Gingrich, willing to sell his soul by running with left wing populism -
I didi not feel Mr. Gingrich did as well as Mr. Medved believes. But I tend to try to view the Candidates in their entirety when on Stage. Gingrich wagging the finger, blaming the Media for his problems, is absurd.
Romney hits at the two major weak points for Gingrich and Santorum, being Washington Politicians who are part of the problem. Romney was outstanding especially in regards to discussing the economic challenges and advocating for the empowerment of the Private Sector. He scores big when he speaks about stopping Obama's push for the entitlement society. Romney again shows he is the best Candidate, period.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRomney certainly doesn't want to talk about his terrible record as Gov of Mass. He left office with an approval rating ranking him among the bottom for governors in this contry. Romneycare is a huge top down mess. It's been a disaster. What's worse is he used federal dollars (thanks to Ted Kennedy) to implement his failed healthcare plan. This country can't afford Mitt as president. Mitt will be a big gov't moderate, just like McCain. When are the Republicans going to learn we can't win with these guys, we need to run a true conservative.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMedved who....I thought he only did movie reviews, does anyone really listen to his rado show. NR must really be hard up for contributors.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI missed Rick Perry. Your point?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI thought Santorum did well, but as I posted at Jonah's piece, he doesn't have either the stamina, the fire in the belly, or the ruthless smarts that one needs to have in a general election campaign. The use of the word "peevish" as used by Old Fan seems to be right, even though O.F. is full of it on the rest of his post.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMr. Medved: That, in different words, is exactly my take on the evening's festivities. Elsewhere, I said about Rick Santorum:
"...Santorum could have been a contender, if only he could put forth his plan or vision, and not have to try, like Captain Ahab, to put a harpoon in Mitt, or Newt, or Ron on each essay. He ends up coming off like a cross between Cassandra and some character out of Reservoir Dogs - not likable and not really getting the key thing - his vision - out there...."
This will soon be down to three men. Maybe they can have more than a minute for a response?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI am a Canadian watching these debates and I can't understand what the above author can be thinking -- this was a good debate? The men look tired and irritated and their arguments aren't compelling, nor do they offer enough detail to really be useful. I suppose these exercises are helpful in theory for displaying knowledge, character and personality, but they don't in my opinion show very much of any of these -- a President has to surmount being a mere businessman and needs to consult and retain business-oriented people to advise him or her -- but not be one, necessarily... and former politicians at a different level should have more reputation behind them to offer for President. Is there anyone else out there?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNo, this was not an interesting or informative debate, it was depressing. Who was the intended audience, the citizens of the United States? They deserve better. I am an Obama supporter but would like to see a respected and competent person on the other side, why not... this is sad.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou mean someone with the "respect and competence" of BO?
You know the meaning of the word "hypocrite", right?
obamanation is certainly going to run on the many "results" of his "competence" and the crass class warfare and hateful division, blame-gaming that has earned him all that respect here and around the world, won't he?
...just clueless!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLOL.
I'm glad that you were open minded enough to watch the debate.
I recommend reading "Basic Economics" by Thomas Sowell. Just the first couple of chapters.
Very easy reading. No charts or equations. What I like about Dr. Sowell is that he is simply shows demonstrates economic behavior on the personal level .. with countless examples from recent day back to hundreds of years ago.
He shows how individuals respond to political and economic stresses and sheds light into the effect rather than the intent of various ideas.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is a decisive point in the '12 GOP primary. If Newt wins, he'll get the nomination; if he loses his campaign is just about over and Romney will roll to the nomination.
External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLooks like I nailed it... :-)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOn Monday Newt won the debate, but last night Santorum was the clear winner. His answers were direct, and his attacks were effective. Neither Romney nor Newt could counter very well and chose to deflect the attacks by changing the subjects slightly. Newt's answer at the beginning of the debate was all bravado, and when someone talks about how we've all had pain in our lives that someone usually isn't the author of the pain. And how would Newt and Marianne's friends have any idea about whether her allegations are true. That kind of humiliation isn't something that would normally be shared so close to the alleged incident. So Santorum had a great night but it may be to late.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSanctimonious is a good word, but it applies to Medved in this case. Every four years Michael trots out his less-than-expert opinion on who is winning, and should win. He's all over the map. You can hear the verbal sneering on his show, and you can hear it in his article here.
The whole arguement about being 'outside Washington' is tired. What is Obama going to do say, "Vote for me because Gingrich/Santorum" are Washington insiders? Of course not. So let's remove that from the consideration given to a candidate.
I've seen 16 of these debates, and ROmney is coming off more like Algore all the time in flipping from one mode to the next. He's the Goldilocks of candidates. One night too cold, one too hot. He's polished in giving his answers, and wears his suit the best, but there is a reason after campaigning for 5 years now he isn't connecting: People don't trust his polished answers. And the way he continues to be uncritical over the shameful way 'his' superpac disembowels fellow Republicans? The best word I can come up with is Nixonian. We've got a 'Tricky Mitt'.
I admit at the start of these debates last year I kept telling friends and family that Santorum should not be running. Being a Pennsylvanian, I appreciated his time in the Senate. But I thought the fact of him losing his senate seat would sink him. I admit now I am wrong. Sure he has a bit of a pinched look when he gets passionate, but I think that as the American electorate gets to hear him more and more on the campaign trail, they'll see what I see now: a man who has been prepared for this moment in time when we need a candidate who can really work with the House and Senate to get this country headed in the right direction again, while understanding at the same time the seriousness of the foreign policy mess the next president will have to address.
Finally, anyone voting for Ron Paul is asking for the same thing that happened in Minnesota when Ventura was elected: a person too far outside the main to get anything lasting done.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRick made the silly statement that he's the only one who beat an incumbent. Which may be true except that his own record is unfortunately worse. His performance in losing as an incumbent senator in a landslide to the lackluster Bob Casey, Jr was a major disappointment to Pennsylvania Republicans. In last night's debate you saw the reason why.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe reason Santorum lost in 2006 was two-fold:
1. He was running in a year of anti-Republican. After 4 years of non-stop bashing of Bush, it was to be expected. We saw it continue in 2008.
2. As a Pennsylvanian, I can say that the reason Santorum lost was that the Dems finally got smart and ran a "pro-life" Dem against him. Casey Jr. is a poor shadow of his father, Bob Casey Sr., who I voted for. He lost Pennsylvania because Casey gave the impression that he would be like his father in challenging the Dem leadership when it came to the abortion issue. Instead, he is nowhere to be found on the issue. Silent Bob. Fooled a lot of pro-life Dems. He voted for the Healthcare abomination. And votes lock-step with Harry Reid when called to do so. Santorum, if he had been on the ticket in 2010 instead of Toomey, would have won again.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse