New, aggressive Mitt Romney, who debuted in the goofy Brian Williams quasi-debate last week, was out in full force tonight and he was very, very good. Romney needs to be ready for a fight if he’s to go toe-to-toe with Obama, and the former Massachusetts Governor is finally showing some grit. Rick Santorum drew some blood on him in a heated exchange on healthcare, but Mitt has sworn he’d repeal Obamacare, and that should mitigate many voters’ concerns about his sub-par record on that issue.
Newt Gingrich is most effective when he’s bashing the media and taking the fight to the left (as opposed to strictly Obama), and he wasn’t able do much of either tonight. He called moderator Wolf Blitzer on one “nonsense question,” which was fun, and was able to shoe-horn in one Alinsky reference (which he didn’t have the chance to flesh-out), but those high-ish-lights weren’t enough to make up for an otherwise pedestrian performance.
Rick Santorum spent the first two thirds of the debate yelling at people—though his talking yelling points were generally quite good—and then got sweet and sensitive for the latter third. I like my President cool, calm, and collected, and Santorum needs work on that front.
Thanks to Ron Paul for the comic relief.
As usual, the real winner tonight was President Obama and his palace guards we call the mainstream media. While Wolf Blitzer wasn’t overtly partisan, he was able to keep the focus off of the failure currently occupying the White House or left-wing values and on moon colonies and which wife is best.
There was a moment tonight when one of the nominees gave a robust defense of capitalism. He discussed the value of risk, investments and the jobs that are created as a result. Imagine my surprise when I realized that candidate was…Mitt Romney. The Mitt Romney that had always been promised finally decided to make an appearance tonight. His rise eclipsed Gingrich.
26 Jan
GOP Debate Reactions: Romney on Points
Romney’s chief economic adviser is none other than R. Glenn Hubbard, the Columbia University economist of “give it your best shot” fame.
Astonishing.
Why? See the video clip below.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gz6r-MHiC24&feature=related
blah, blah, blah.
Can’t be the same debate I watched. Romney did alright but there is no way I’d describe his performance as “very, very good”. however Santorum was excellent. The writer uses the word “angry” for Rick’s presentation, the proper description is “impassioned”. Santorum made excellent points and did so well that it even blew even the die-hard Dems at CNN away.
What people have been wanting from Romney is fire in the belly.
@Ditto: Actually I think ‘angry’ fits pretty well. But I also think that Santorum’s performance leaves the most room for wild disagreement; there’s a fine line between righteous-and-impassioned and hectoring-and-angry and looking at the reactions I’ve seen a number of people who put him in each category. I also would call him out on his supposed prescience regarding Fannie/Freddie and the housing bubble; as late as 2005 he was still pushing for more government incentives to increase homeownership.
And while Paul showed a little more humor than usual, that doesn’t quite make him comic relief. He did well last night, not least because there weren’t a lot of foreign policy questions. Funny to see so many instances of ‘Ron Paul is right’ coming out of the other candidates’ mouths.
Seems everyone views a debate thru their own eyes. I have my own criteria. It’s not if someone can present fantasy in a believable fashion, but whether they have a grip on genuine facts, or the ideology I share.
In that aspect, I think the best of the night goes to Ron Paul and Newt.
Santorum:
1: Couldn’t keep his relatives straight. First it was his grandfather who was an immigrant. Later it was his father. ????
2: Spoke with forked tongue on Cuba. First he says no no no to any trade relations. Then he says he would encourage an economic relationship with hostile/despot nations (like Cuba?) to effect change. huh?
3: Made the faux pas when suggesting Newt was going from state to state, “promising” things simply to pander. As Newt artfully pointed out, the purpose of the campaign was to travel to the states, and to learn their specific issues and needs. (Well received by the audience, as many of his other statements, and all ignored for highlighting by the media). When Newt is aware that the Panama Canal is going to create opportunities for Jacksonville and SC deep water seaports, and thereby increase imports/exports and add jobs, you have to wonder why the rest of them aren’t doing their research. Or are they not curious of on the horizon opportunities?
4: Screwed up on trying to tie Honduras to the Arab spring. While correct in pointing out that Obama was siding with leftist despots on the Honduras Prez exile, supporting the Arab rebels wasn’t supporting “leftists” in the eyes of the world. As you can tell even here on FA, lending any support to US allied despots over riots in the street is a tough proposition to sell. Honduras and Arab spring are totally unrelated, except to say the Obama always picks the wrong side to support for the wrong reasons.
Ron Paul:
1: Engaging and downright deadpan satire at times. Gave me many smiles and a couple of belly laughs. The RP supporters must be cringing that Paul has been bonding with Newt over the past two debates.
2: Rightfully called out Newt on the balanced budget, and Newt rightfully acquiesced. Altho both are correct. The budget was “balanced” via the traditional definitions used by Congress… i.e. not including off budget items. However since many of us like to point out that Clinton’s “surplus” wasn’t real except by the same traditional “definitions”, that was a good point. Newt made points by agreeing and saying that the entitlements should be permanently made on budget…. altho the Wolf was busy cutting Newt’s response off.
3: Had some good points about trade with Central America… not perfect considering he hates trade agreements, but some good points made.
Mittens:
1: Caught with his pants down on his ads against Newt… then not so innocently asks him.. “well did you say those things”? If Mittens doesn’t know what he’s “approving” in his ad campaign, I’d say he offshores too much delegated authority. Plus he’s starting to sound like Obama… everything is always some one else’s fault. The Superpacs, his ad guys, his investment broker, etc etc. I’m not interested in another finger pointer who doesn’t take responsibility.
2: Opened himself up to criticism on Freddie/Fannie when he suggested that he was for dismantling them… while making big bucks on the investment of their subprime activities. He’s a politician, and always has been (when he could get elected, that is). He should know he has the authority to tell his investment body when to stay away from a controversial investment. If he doesn’t, see above… delegates too much authority to others, then finger points that it’s not his fault.
ADDED: Turns out that his Fannie/Freddie investments weren’t in a blind trust at all, and another lie by Romney (added to the “I always vote for Republicans BS”)
3: Clueless to today’s mortgage market. Said the Fannie/Freddie were making more loans to unqualified buyers. uh… no. Leaving out the obvious that the GSE’s only buy loans on the secondary mortgage market, those who are picking up the secondary market primarily are FHA and USDA, who’s criteria for credit scores are lower, and require no downpayment (USDA) or 3% minimal down (FHA). Those loans are not Fannie/Freddie. Getting a loan to be purchased by the GSEs these days is like trying to shove an elephant thru the eye of a needle.
The ultimate winner on the GSE and taxes was Santorum.. saying (paraphrased) “WTF are we doing spending time on this crap” This, of course made Wolfie push it more.
4: Has been training with a “debate coach”. He still drones on, but as his fan, drj, says, he needs to give the impression he has the fire in the belly. Well, you can change the words and delivery for an “impression”, but the lack of substance and aversion remains the same. But I’m sure he’ll fool many. Not me. Didn’t find him impressive in any fashion last night.
5: Still on the quest to demonize lobbyists, which encompasses a very wide range of those representing citizens in Washington. This is another item that will come back to bite his butt in a general, since it’s pretty clear that Chris Christie – his champion attack down for the campaign along with Coulter – made his living first as an attorney, then a lobbyist. So what will Mittens say when he says a lobbyist should *not* be POTUS, then potentially asks Christie to be his VP, and second in line to the WH? Oh.. won’t matter much because he’ll have already fooled the gullible into giving him the nomination.
Something about Romney all those of who find him an adequate “settlement” candidate just because you want Obama out…. are you just as happy being stuck with a MA RINO for eight years? Because if Romney is a 2012 compromise candidate winner, you’ll never get rid of him as the incumbent in 2016. If I don’t like him this year… and I’m obviously part of that 66-75% group, I’m darned sure we won’t be thrilled when we’re stuck with him in 2016 as well.
Newt:
1: Actually strong on all the issues and still articulate. Steady and plodding. But those that want to “Newt’er” Newt claim that he’s only good in a debate if he hits it out of the ballpark, and usually suggest it’s just the assault on media. But when he does, they claim he’s a “loose cannon” or a “hot head”. Newt was actually very (and I hate this word…) “Presidential” in both the Florida debates. He made his points, pretty much tried to stay out of the fray but was dragged in. Since most of this in fighting is somewhat a side show to me, Newt held his own, and those that thought Mittens won only say so for his attacks on Newt. Double standard much?
2: As I pointed out above… Mitt suggesting that the GSEs should have been dismantled and were heavily involved in the housing collapse begged the point that he was making money off of the same entities that he was opposing. To suggest that Newt’s investment, or work for them as a consultant (or “influence peddler” that Mittens likes to use now because he knows he wasn’t lobbying…) makes his investment holdings akin doesn’t work. Newt wasn’t advocating for the dismantling of Fannie/Freddie. Restructuring, no bailouts and reform, yes. But not the dismantling. Therefore Newt’s GSEs holdings aren’t outside of his principles, where Mitt’s clearly were.
3: Newt made the error of a POTUS with a “Swiss bank account”. What he should have said was bank account in the Caymans.. of which we don’t know if the full amount, or how many accounts are actually declared. It’s wise for Mittens to defend his wealth, and to take ever tax break he can. But it’s also going to be his downfall with Obama… who needs the evil heartless capitalist to be the foil to his abused and downtrodden middle class.
Mittens, if you remember, was the guy who said “no one wants a President who pays a dime more in taxes than he owes” in the last debate. ???? Really? I don’t care what he does with his money, but I would have respect for a guy who voluntarily did make his “charitable” contribution to the IRS without a tax mandate.
4: Newt still tends to be the guy with the more specific layout of plans and growth for the pertinent state. I like details more than platitudes.
But like I said… everyone comes away with their own debate impressions. And since I rarely find myself in agreement with the media, or the Romney devotees, it’s no surprise I differ now. The man who I thought rose in debate performance was Paul, who came off less off the wall… probably because they did steer away from foreign policy most of the time, and his efforts to get it there didn’t work.
Hint for the night… the question about which Hispanic would you like to see in your administration. Newt’s answer about “saving Santorum” for a more significant title gave me the impression that what he’d like is a Newt/Rubio ticket. Throw Palin in as either Energy Secy or EPA head honcho, and Ron Paul in as Fed Reserve or Treasury Secy, and you’d have an admin I think could genuinely make some impact.
I will admit right here that I haven’t watched one single debate up to this point. However, I have read the post-debate reactions by commenters on blogs, like FA, and political pundits. I have to say that I really dislike this field of candidates for the GOP nomination. Every one of them has faults that are very hard to overlook, and won’t be by the Obama campaign and their sidekick the MSM. Now, I don’t mean to say that there is a candidate out there without any faults, because then I would be thinking like a liberal/progressive in their adoration of Obama himself.
For the GOP nominee to win, Obama’s record must be put on trial first and foremost, and must overshadow the negatives from the GOP that the MSM will continue to play non-stop until election day. I just don’t see any of them being able to do so effectively. After all, the majority of the electorate is ill-informed about the issues affecting them, and liable to believe whoever is shouting the loudest(between Obama and the GOP nominee). And with the MSM being in Obama’s back pocket, I just don’t believe the GOP nominee, out of these candidates, will have the ability to counteract that.
Romney – I see him, as do many others, as being the type of pol who will say and promise anything for a vote. His record as MA governor, and most prominently his giving of ‘Romneycare’ to MA, will be the major factor that ends up costing him votes. Despite what the MSM will tell you, the majority of the country is against Obamacare, and Romneycare will not play that well with the possible voters, both conservative and moderate, that he needs to win vs. Obama. However, that is not something the MSM will be doting on. Their issue is going to be his business record, and he will be compared unfavorably, time and time again, to Gordon Gecko of ‘Wall Street’ fame. The fact that he has “overseas” accounts is not going to help him in his attempts to rid himself of being portrayed as an “evil corporatist” as the nominee.
Santorum – Just not politically savvy enough, in my opinion. Nor all that well known. Both are going to hurt him, unless his VP pick is a complete homerun. I see the Obama campaign, with the help of the MSM, running circles around him, and woe to him if he continues to “confuse” his own history, as Mata pointed out above. And never mind that the MSM hasn’t given the American public Obama’s true history, that won’t matter. As for his substance, I have heard him speak, and as a conservative, I like his points, thus, I know of him, and have for quite a few years. For the American public, though, who overall lack political knowledge, he will be too unknown to draw the support he needs. I could be wrong, but then again, I don’t have much faith that the American public will turn off their Survivor or American Idol episodes to learn more about him.
Ron Paul – As I said in another post topic, Ron Paul is not a leader. He too often will either get angry, or pout away, when people don’t agree 100% with his “plan” on anything. And while I like, for the most part, what his stances are on issues, for him, it is “all or nothing”. As for Obama and the MSM, Paul will be portrayed as being “kooky” and/or “out of touch” with how things are done. I don’t believe Paul would be able to shake free of this portrayal at all, and in fact, believe that he could become unhinged at some point or another during a general campaign, effectively killing his remote chance at beating Obama.
Newt – While being the most politically savvy of the candidates, and having the best, realistic proposals, I just think his baggage will be too much to overcome in a general election against Obama. If the election was won on debates alone, Newt would crush Obama, however, it is not, so the Obama/MSM cabal will be pulling out all the stops in discussing Newt’s failed marriages, the charges leveled at him as Speaker, his “forced” resignation as Speaker, etc. Now, having said that, I do believe that Newt has the best opportunity out of all the GOP candidates to beat Obama. I say that because it is entirely possible that Obama and his MSM helpers will become so transparent in their gutter attacks that it would backfire on Obama, and that people would actually start paying attention to the real issues facing the country.
All in all, though, I don’t have much faith that any of the candidates can beat Obama. Not because of their politics, but because of the non-issue negatives that the public will be subjected to about them. Any of them are better than Obama, and Newt and Santorum would, I think, make great presidents. I just think that the American voting masses, overall, are so involved with the “reality tv” phenomenon, and that Obama and the MSM will keep harping on all the non-issue negatives, that Obama’s record, and the GOP nominee’s issue stances, will take a backseat in the general election. Call me a pessimist, I’m just not that excited about any of them.
For republicans, it seems to be coming down to a choice between a newt and a gecko.
(Sorry. Somebody had to say it.)
John Galt said it elegantly in 7 paragraphs.
Greg One sentence. Beautiful
@johngalt… ditto from me.
BTW, this is an interesting report from The Hill Ballot-Box blog. It’s not a scientific poll, but a Florida Insider think tank survey of 57 Republicans, 41 Democrats, and six independents of the State’s “political elites”… i.e. 100 lobbyists, fundraisers and political operatives.
The results? Some pessimism over all at best, and mixed thoughts on who will win Florida.
Then again, the political elite tend to follow polling. And my guess is few of them were around to remember that very unconventional 1980 election, that defied the same type of data.
So buckle your seat belts. Everyone is clueless to the outcome. But it will be a rough ride all the way thru.
Got to be kidding on this one. Romney was strip searched and laid bare by Santorum on romneycare and its mandate. Romney was shucking and jiving and showing how vulerable he is on this issue.
Romney and his attack dogs are liars and will say or do anything for power. the elite RINO’s want Romney. If they get him, he will leave most of the base at home and the party will face huge disaster once again. They said they had learned after the tea party, but they have not only not learned, but it is very apparent detest the strong conservative tea party folks because they cannot control them. It is not just this election, but if they force Romney with these dirty tacktics and outright lies, they are shutting it down for life.
Bob Dole, you will remember from George Stephanoupolos’s memoir of his time in Clinton’s White House, totally cut the legs out from under Newt Gingrich and House Republicans during the government shut down. According to the Democrats, they were within twenty-four hours of caving to the House Republicans’ demands, but Bob Dole surprised them all by caving first.
Dole went on to lose to Bill Clinton and still hates Newt Gingrich for it because Gingrich was the face used to attack Dole — a man who would have been the hero in the fight had Dole not caved.
And we’re supposed to hate Newt Gingrich because Bob Dole caved to the Democrats twenty-four hours before they were going to cave to Gingrich?
Zelsdorf Ragshaft on January 28, 2012 at 1:31 AM
@bbartlog:
Charles Krauthammer and most commentators agree with me that Santorum was very effective and without a doubt won the 2nd Florida debate. He K.O.ed Romney with the best yet slam on Romney Care. Expect his primary vote totals to again, be higher than what the polls predict.
“Charles Krauthammer reviewed the performances of the Republican candidates during Thursday’s CNN debate last night, discussing the issue with Sean Hannity. He did not find that either Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich won the debate, however, instead giving that credit to Rick Santorum, who he noted attacked Romney more efficiently on health care than anyone had before. …” “Santorum won on points and he sort of won on presentation,” Krauthammer told Hannity, noting that “after nineteen debates, somebody finally nailed Romney on the issue of Romneycare and Obamacare” and that Santorum “went after him like prosecutor.” He didn’t see much of a chance for Santorum, but he noted that the strategy of “wait[ing] around in case one or the other major candidates implodes” was a smart one that Tim Pawlenty could have benefited from. Until said implosion, “live off the land and do well in debates.”
“This was really Rick Santorum’s night to shine… right from the start, when he gave an introduction filled with lovable enthusiasm and a shout-out to his 93-year-old mother in the audience, instead of political boilerplate. He concluded with his assessment of the 2012 election as America’s decision between being “a country built from the bottom up or top down,” and an appeal to the Reagan Democrats so thoroughly abandoned by Barack Obama….he leveled a blistering indictment of RomneyCare, and quite simply defeated Romney on the issue of mandates and fines. He said Romney’s system amounts to forcing people to either buy insurance or pay a fine, and many of them are paying the fine because it’s cheaper than obeying the insurance mandate, just as we’ve seen happening with ObamaCare. “
The Weekly Standard
Santorum may lack the funds so far, but that can change.
Tracking of facebook likes (or rather gains in same) also suggests that Santorum got the biggest boost from the last debate (at least in the online demographic). Each candidate typically gains a certain number per day (of likes); if there’s a big spike over that baseline in the 24 hours after a debate, it suggests the candidate did well. Of course other things like winning a state or getting in the news in other ways can also create a spike.
Anyway, following on the last debate there was little change in the numbers for Paul and Romney (both got 5700 new likes, about average for both in recent weeks). Gingrich continued to droop somewhat, going under 1000 for the first time in about ten days. Santorum spiked up to near 3000, nearly triple his recent average.
Factcheck on the other hand didn’t have much nice to say about Santorum, but I’m not sure that matters