If you believe the polls, Newt needed a big night to turn around the momentum and he didn’t get it. He struck me as tired and too ticked for his own good. I don’t understand why he invested so heavily at the beginning in defending the “anti-immigrant” ad that he pulled and Rubio had criticized. For the first time perhaps ever, Romney effectively showed righteous indignation (unfortunately for me, since I have a column tomorrow saying he isn’t quite capable of it). On Fannie and Freddie, Romney won the exchange when he dropped it on Gingrich that the Speaker, too, had invested in the mortgage giants; whatever oppo guy came up with that for Romney deserves a raise and perhaps should get cut into one of those Cayman accounts. Then, the decisive moment of the debate and perhaps the primary, when Gingrich tried to wheel on Wolf Blitzer and it didn’t work. Gingrich attempted to argue that it was OK for him to attack Romney for his tax returns in a TV interview but “nonsense” to try to get him to talk about it during the debate. Romney pounced and—in a moment reminiscent of Pawlenty’s “Obamneycare” snafu–hit Gingrich for not being willing to repeat his charge in person. Gingrich had to give in and address the matter, after seeing his old moderator trick fail and sounding peevish in the bargain. Romney was forceful throughout, but messed up a few facts that will create post-debate storylines. He gave his best, most forceful defense yet of his wealth, although I can’t imagine hearing so much about his blind trust is going to help with the working-class vote. Santorum was simply terrific. He showed why anti-Romney conservatives would have been much better served by rallying around him rather Newt. Ron Paul was hilarious.
When Wolf asked the candidates about releasing medical records, why the heck didn't any of them pounce on that and ask Wolf why no one in the media has asked or demanded that Obama do the same - along with his college transcripts, thesis, etc.?
Come to think of it, why hasn't anyone at NRO thought to raise that question in the midst of all this 'disclosing' that's in the air these days?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI missed it, Rich. So why don't I trust your judgement? Are you proud of what you have instilled in half your readership?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseUnforturnely, Newt didn't win the debate. The american people need to know he is going to fight for us and against the anti elite establishment. He didn't show that in the last two debates. However, Mitt Romney will not win an election against President O'bama. Average voters will not vote for a rich elite millionaire over President O’bama. Even if he could beat O'bama, Romney would be the Washington establishment status quo President. So, it is really the American people who lost tonight.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseConservatives "would have been" better off rallying around Santorum? Why not "would be"? After Florida we'll still only have a miniscule number of delegates selected. If conservatives actually did rally to his cause, there is still plenty of time.
For that matter, there is still time for establishment types to realize that their chosen candidate would be a disaster against Obama. Santorum would be a great alternative to Newt for them as well. We have two seriously flawed candidates with major liabilities that can easily cost us a very winnable Presidential election. And meanwhile the guy who doesn't have such liabilities is running a distant third. That doesn't make sense.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOne word: Women. Rick Santorum would not win 40% of the female vote in a general election. Not 40%. What's worse? Without a single negative ad against Rick Santorum running anywhere in the country, he still fails to break 40% against Obama.
External Link
You can't win many general elections with that.
Also, it's going to be very difficult for the guy who's railing against "top down" health care to explain why he has no problem with the state banning contraception. In the case of birth control, "top down" seem just fine to him.
Women would crawl naked over a mile of broken glass to vote against Santorum, I don't care how bad the economy is. That's his reality.
Lastly, while I understand that Santorum has apparently had a recent conversion against "socialized medicine", is it believable? This is the guy, after all, who fought aggressively for the largest expansion of America's social medicine program in the last 50-years. Oh, and it wasn't paid for. It's also tough to be the new deficit/budget hawk when, for your entire Congressional tenure, you voted for every government program that came down the pike. That's not my opinion, that's the opinion of Club for Growth.
http://www.clubforgrowth.org/news/?subsec=7&id=1007&v=pr&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ClubForGrowthPressReleases+%28Club+for+Growth+||+Press+Releases%29
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusenot sure why that last link did that.
External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSantorum is polling better head-to-head with Obama than Newt is.
I think that is part of the point being made about the Romney alternative. Newt is poison (talk about the lost women vote!)
And I think you grossly underestimate Santorum (or maybe women voters) in his ability to connect with Moms across the nation. He can swat away that contraception canard the left will trot out (as he did in one of the debates) but he would OWN Obama on any social questions like abortion in a debate. That is his wheelhouse.
Yeah, he won't compromise on gay marriage or abortion - but it's not like tha gays and NOW are voting GOP no matter who we put up there. Meanwhile, the Reagan Democrat could care less and is more likely to connect to Rick than Romney.
A lot of people are going to walk on broken glass to vote OUT Obama too...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm not at all surprised Santorum is polling as well or better than Gingrich; Gingrich is having all kinds of negative ads run against him. They work. Romney's negatives have increased too over the last 10-days because of the ads Gingrich has been running. If negative ads didn't work, candidates wouldn't spend (literally) tens-of-millions on them.
With respect to the social issue owning of Obama: It's a loser. Nationally.
Let's stipulate that Santorum's positions are perfectly reasonable and defensible when discussed in an intelligent way. The problem is that's not how politics in America is conducted. Instead, candidates look to isolate and then freeze and then destroy their opponents and it's all done with advertising. Imagine what $150M in commercials of Rick Santorum saying no to abortion, even in cases of rape and incest, and saying yes to states being able to ban contraception and yes on ejecting homosexual service members from the military post DADT repeal and even the opposition to gay marriage (where Santorum is also against civil unions and homosexual adoption) - which enjoys majority support among white voters, particularly the white educated voters that the GOP has to win this fall. These are all things that Santorum has endorsed on camera during these debates. Obama and his Superpacs would destroy Santorum.
"Meanwhile, the Reagan Democrat could care less and is more likely to connect to Rick than Romney."
Here's the dirty little secret: Of the "Reagan Democrats" that aren't already dead (and MANY of them are), most all of them are faithful Republicans now. The only "white" demographic that McCain didn't win in 2008 was 18-29 group, where he only captured 44% of the vote. McCain even won whites making more than $50K AND whites making less than $50K. Those are the so-called Reagan Democrats.
Conversely, McCain's worst performance with any white demographic was the "college-educated" demo, where he only won 51% of the vote - contrasted with the non-college educated white voter where he won 58% of the vote. Those college-educated voters are not what is described as "values voters". They're socially moderate or even liberal but they're fiscally conservative. Santorum would have a hard time even winning 51%.
It's not fair to Santorum, who's actually a wholly decent guy and one of the most wonkish candidates that any party has put up in years, but it is what it is.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseScott, here is the thing.
Anyone willing to vote 4 more years of Obama because Santorum is somehow 'extreme' on prolife (and keep in mind all the clips of Romney in the primaries preaching his prolife credentials) or somehow 'extreme' on homosexuality (and keep in mind the Mormon church was nationally famous for the work to defeat gay marriage in CA last time)
Well...that means the economy clearly has recovered...and we aren't beating Obama with anybody. I just saw Hannity's roundtable and that lefty tool (whose name escapes me) was yelling about gays and Santorum. Just LET that be the big rallying cry for the left with the economy in shambles - good luck.
You make a good point about Reagan Democrats, mostly...but soccer Moms, factory workers can find in Santorum a Republican they can vote for.
And Rick's larger point about Obamacare being somewhat off the table with Romney does have merit.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHe isn't going to gain much traction with the soccer moms if he suggests, much less endorses the idea that a state should be able to ban birth control.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhere did this particular rumor get started? I keep seeing it trotted out. I've never seen a candidate say that.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe idea that Santorum thinks that states have the right to ban birth control isn't a rumor it is a fact.
External Link
To be fair, he doesn't believe states should ban it, just that they have the right to do it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSantorum could also point out that Obama hasn't exactly been doing cartwheels to promote gay marriage, either. Granted, O did end Don't Ask, Don't Tell but I think by that point it was kind of an anti-climax, pardon the pun.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Ron Paul was hilarious."
Oh Rich, aren't you just the cutest little guy! I just wanna pinch your little cheeks, wearing that big boy suit and *everything*!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSantorum was exceptional and the winner tonight, but Romney's new debate coach deserves some praise, too. Romney was forceful and commanding in a way he hadn't been previously. That new debate persona serves him well.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRomney's explanation of his past support of Democrats and relationship to Reaganism was weak and rambling. I was stunned that he actually tried to defend Romneycare in the face of Santorum's withering attack.
Gingrich started off weak, but had the strongest close of the four. Santorum benefited the most from this debate. I think he may have taken some votes away from Romney.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMitt really exposed Newt tonight, and I really think people are under estimating Romney's chances in November against Obama. Gingrich has made Mitt a sharper and tougher candidate. Had the nomination been the coronation Romney expected, I think the Chicago Machine would have chewed him up and spit him out.
I also completely agree that the viable NotRomney candidate should have been Rick Santorum. Too bad the idiots in our Party are so easily impressed with con artists.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNewt had a miserable night. He seemed listless and didn't best Romney or Wolf Blitzer in their exchanges. One would never know Newt has the most pro-growth economic program or the most systematic Social Security reform. He's capable of and needed to do more. Santorum was terrific. While Romney was solid he's not a conviction conservative.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRich you got your wish, were going to run another moderate Republican. Only this time the grandfather of Obamacare, who supported cap and trade and thinks he can compromise with the democrats, congratulations its gum on your shoe now. You think for a moment Obama is quaking in his boots over this guy.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt Wendle Wilkie vs Roosevelt in 1940 all over again. Just different names. Thank you NR.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse