Florida Republican Debate 1.0

Tonight's debate, hosted by NBC, was the first of two debates before Floridians pull out the canes and the walkers and venture out into the January chill to vote. There were no real highlights.

Out of the gate, Romny went on the attack, throwing every bit of mud he could at Gingrich, hoping that some of it would stick. He came off as angry and shrill. Gingrich refused to take the bait, staying composed. As to how that plays overall, we will have to wait to see the new polls to tell.

That said, I think Romney made a huge mistake by trying to dredge every bit of mud he could find rather than concentrate on just the worst of it all - including that he went a step too far in the attacks. Romney concluded his attack by criticizing Gingrich's support of Medicare Part D while taking money for advising pharmaceutical firms. Gingrich pounced, embracing Medicare and Medicare Part D and that he was shocked (just shocked I say) that Romney would criticize him (or the millions of elderly Floridians on Medicare) for his  support of Medicare Part D. That was not a highlight reel, but I bet it plays with a lot of registered reporters in Florida.

 The slipperiest answer of the night was from Newt, whose full support of the ethanol mandate is unconscionable. Part of the ethanol program includes large supports for Florida sugar cane farmers. Newt gave a long non-answer, bring up beet root sugar and other farm subsidies, concluding that all subsidies should be taken away, but that removing agriculture subsidies is almost in the 'too hard to do' column.

A question was brought up on the Dream Act. Romney, weeks prior to the debate, said that he would veto it.  Many thought this was going to hurt Romney in Florida, with its large latino population.  When Gingrich was asked in the debate whether he too would veto the act, he said no, that he would keep that portion of the Dream Act that would allow illegals who join our military to get citizenship through that route - which is actually a long term policy of the U.S.  Romney quickly jumped in out of turn, obviously realizing the error of his ways, and said that he agreed with Gingrich.

What really struck me, at the end of debate, was the fact that Romney still doesn't have a good narrative as to why he should be President. He was asked, "[This] is a battle for the soul of the Republican Party. What have you done to further the cause of Conservativism as a Republican leader?" Romney response was anything but a cogent and stirring call to arms. He started off by talking about being a father and grandfather. He then tried to play up his private sector experience, but didn't make any of the points he could have as to why that makes him the best Presidential choice.

One of the things that was blatantly obvious during the debate is that Gingrich is courting Ron Paul in domestic policy areas. Indeed, the only thing that didn't happen on the stage was Gingrich passing folded love notes over to Paul, who in fact repeatedly had eyes for Gingrich. It was a bit stomach churning. Truly, if I was Caliska, and given Newt's history, I'd be worried.

Santorum gave good answers to the few questions thrown his way.  Ron Paul sounded sane and sage tonight.  I don't think it will help either too much.

In sum, I don't know whether tonight's debate will stop Gingrich's momentum.  Gingrich may have helped himself a little with his answers on the Dream Act and Medicare.  Let's see the polls.

Read More...

Summary only...

Another Poor Debate Compliments Of ABC

I said it the last time ABC hosted the Republican debate, and I'll say it again - the Republican candidates should never agree to a debate hosted by George Stephanopoulos and Diane Sawyer.  Last night's debate was another mini-travesty with the moderators asking utterly inane questions seemingly right out of the Democratic playbook.  The worst of the bunch was whether states have a right to ban contraception.  As Romney pointed out ten times to Stephanopoulos, that is not an issue any state has raised.  Then there was another 15 minutes spent on gay marriage - an issue in which the candidates have not an inch of space between their positions.  The only reason to dwell on it in a Republican debate was to prime the left wing pump for the general election.

Romney got through the debate without being seriously challenged by any of the candidates.  Newt hinted at a challenge, but could have been much more aggressive in comparing and contrasting his economic plan with Romney's, as well as his experience in creating the conditions for job growth.  At this point though, it might all be academic.  Michael Barone is calling it for Romney.  I will hold my breath until South Carolina.

As always in the debates, the best lines of the night came from Gingrich.  Chief among those was his response on the gay marriage issue - refusing to take the Stephanopoulos bait:

       

Even two of the most despicable pundits on the right, Coulter and Rubin, applauded Newt for that answer on twitter.  I can only guess that they feel Newt's candidacy is already mortally wounded, and thus it is safe now to show a bit of magnanimity.  If Newt was leading, I would expect the two of them to be banging the drum on how Newt's performance was dismal and how Romney shined.  They are a disgraceful pair.

Ron Paul was Ron Paul, taking shots at Santorum and Gingrich, though surprisingly not really taking any shots at Romney.  If you were not for Paul before the debate, nothing he said is likely to change your mind.

Santorum got asked a lot of questions and didn't fumble any of them.  My sense was that he neither helped nor hurt himself tonight.

As an aside, let me point out that I do not support Santorum for the nomination.  Indeed, I rank him just above Ron Paul.  My problems with Santorum are two fold.  One, he lacks charisma and seems humorless.  Two, my sense is that he is committed to social conservatism the way the far left is committed to progressivism.  He would push to ensconce his views into law without respect to federalism or majority views, as the far left has done with their own ideology over the past fifty years.  While I am a social conservative, I am a Constitutionalist first.  I do not think that Santorum is.  

Huntsman and Perry did not get asked many questions.  I can't see them staying in the race beyond South Carolina.

Read More...

Summary only...

ABC's Hosts A Circular Firing Squad - Only Romey Hit

The ABC Republican Debate, billed as a debate on domestic and foreign policy, was turned by the moderators George Stephenopolous and Diane Sawyer into a circular firing squad with Gingrich in the middle. The evening resembled an ambush more than a debate, with most of the questions explicitly designed to require the candidates to take shots at Gingrich. That said, the consensus of 20,000 plus viewers responding to the debate from Yahoo as well as the analysts of the ABC News crew was that Gingrich had done well to the point of solidifying a position as the presumptive nominee, Bachman helped herself to a degree, and Romney hurt himself, perhaps badly. I concur, though I would add that Ron Paul gave some very good answers, as did Rick Perry.

The Debate Overview:

As surprisingly good as CNN's debate was several weeks ago, ABC's debate was that surprisingly horrendous. This was not a debate where the candidates were asked to explain policy and make a positive case for why they should be nominated. Two of the questions asked give a flavor for the degree to which this was an ambush aimed largely at Gingrich. On the issue of Faith, the sole question asked was:

Should voters consider marital fidelity when making their choices for President?"

Ready, Aim for the Newt, Fire!!! Almost as bad, on the issue of "foreign policy," the only question asked was:

Speaker Gingrich managed to cause something of a stir overnight in the Middle East with comments he made in an interview on a Jewish channel in which he called the Palestinians an "invented people." And I just wondered, Congressman Paul, if I can start with you, do you agree with that characterization . . .?

The Debate Highlights:

Every candidate had some good moments during the evening, despite the way in which the "debate" was conducted by ABC. The three best were (in my humble opinion):

1. Ron Paul: While discussing the healthcare mandate, stated "Once government uses force to mold behavior or mold the economy, they've overstepped the bounds and violated the whole concept of our revolution and our Constitution." That drew much applause.

2. Rick Perry: When asked to pile on about how bad Newt was for saying that the Palestinians were an invented people, went Gingrich on the moderators, saying that "this is a minor issue that the media has blown out of proportion." He then went on to discuss the foreign policy missteps of the Obama administration, concluding that "this President is the problem, not something Newt Gingrich said."

3. Newt Gingrich: After being called out by Romney for being a career politician, Gingrich responded to Romney, "[l]et's be candid the only reason you didn't become a career politician is you lost to Teddy Kennedy in 1994."

The Debate Lowlights (mostly, the Romney reel):

1. The worst answer of the night came from Romney in response to the "foreign policy" question, asking the candidates to criticize Gingrich for calling the Palestinians an "invented people." To begin with, Gingrich's statement was accurate (see here and here), and when finally asked by the moderators, Gingrich defended his statement on the need to be honest about what is going on in the Muslim world (see video at the bottom of this post). Romney took the position that, as a matter of policy, we shouldn't be saying anything to make the Muslims angry, whether its true or not. He added the caveat that we could speak the truth on such issues only if we cleared it with Israel first.

The problem is much bigger than Palestine and Israel - that is just a proxy for the larger struggle. Gingrich fully understands that. Whitewashing the problems of the Muslim world, even as Salafism and the Muslim Brotherhood ascend to power, is the precise opposite of what our President needs to be doing. To the contrary, our next President needs to be shining a Xenon searchlight on reality, otherwise Salafism will continue to metastasise throughout the world and the cost to America in blood and gold to fight this scourge will rise exponentially. Romney's answer was profoundly weak and it is clear that he has neither any real understanding of the problem, nor the fortitude to address it openly and honestly.

2. On the issue of "faith," Rick Perry opined that any person who would commit adultery could never be trusted. It was a pretty unseemly display of naked ambition, particularly coming from a man running in large measure on being deeply pious. Apparently, all that Christian dogma about forgiving the sins of the repentant has been suspended by the Perry camp until the conclusion of the Republican primary.

3. Romney had his Pawlenty moment responding to the question, "what (positive) things have you learned from your challengers?" Romney didn't answer the question directly, but rather waxed poetically - and transparetnly - about how important leadership was, and that each candidate has a different leadership style. He stopped there. Anyone who is paying attention knows that Romney is having every one of his surrogates attack Gingrich with the meme that Gingrich has poor leadership. Fair enough, but then Romney stops short of coming out with that himself. Wow. Did this joker have his cajones snipped or what?

4. At one point during the debate, Perry repeated for the umpteenth time the canard that Romney embraced the individual mandate in his first book as a national plan. Romney turned to him, said that Perry was wrong, and then offered to bet him "$10,000" on it. My sympathies lie with Romney on that one, but apparently the many people interacting through Yahoo saw it as a huge negative. This from Yahoo:

When we asked viewers, "Did you like seeing Mitt Romney ask Rick Perry to accept a $10,000 wager?," just 33 percent of the first 1,200 people who responded people answered "yes." By the time the question closed at 11 p.m. with just over 25,000 votes, 70 percent of Yahoo! watchers said "no," they did not like the wager.

NPR politics editor Neal Carruth commented on Twitter: "Suspect the $10,000 bet will remind people of this photo." The picture, from the Romney's days at Bain Capital, shows the candidate and his colleagues gleefully posing with money. Jonah Goldberg, editor-at-large of the National Review, tweeted, "Memo to Romney: Please don't now say that proceeds from $10,000 bet would have gone to charity."

 The Debate Oddities:

1. There was a heap of pandering going on in Iowa. Gingrich made a point of calling the Iowa governor a role model, Bachman reminded us several times that she was born in Iowa, and Rick Santorum tried to work in the names of all of the 99 counties he's visited.

2. Michelle Bachman is trying to pick up the Cain supporters, repeatedly stating that she had renamed her economic plan "win win win" in honor of the Hermanator. I do like her, but she is just a little off center. She is sort of the conservative version of Nancy Pelosi, only a lot less psychotic.

Parting Thoughts:

1. Gingrich was under constant attack, but he responded to each attack effectively with deft answers and equanimity. Anyone who hoped to see Gingrich implode at some point between now and the elections must be disheartened indeed. The ABC news team thought that Newt Gingrich came out of the debate as the "inevitable nominee." I concur.

2. No Republican nominee should consider doing a debate in the general election hosted by ABC News. Their performance was horrid and designed to hurt the Republicans.

Update: Prof. Jacobson at Legal Insurrection posts his comments on the debate here. The Prof. also has a separate post with several videos, two of which I have included below.

This first video is Newt defending his comment that Palestinians are an "invented people" (replaced with the full video on this question)



This second video is of Perry "going Newt" on the moderators for asking the question whether the other nominees agreed with Newt's characterization of the Palestinians as an "invented people."



Do visit Legal Insurrection for the rest of the videos and some interesting tweet captures.

The Coffee Shop is the first blog to have the full debate video posted. You'll find it here.

Other Debate Commentary:

Politico: Republican Debate In Iowa; Newt Gingrich Unbloodied, Unbowed

Real Clear Politics: Free-for-All Iowa Debate Highlights Fluid Race

LAT: Mitt Romney's $10,000 Bet Could Come Back To Haunt Him

WaPo: Iowa Republican Debate: Winners and Losers

Dave Weigel at Slate has written a column, The Iowa Debate: Newt Wins The Dress Rehearsal. In it, he identifies the "foreign policy" question as the moment Newt won the debate. I concur. This from Weigel:

[Gingrich's] last full-on grapple with Romney came when the former governor attacked him, in a sort of more-in-sorrow-than-anger way, for saying that the Palestinians were an "invented people." That, said Romney, was complicating things for Israelis.

"The Israelis are getting rocketed every day," snorted Gingrich. "We're not making life more difficult. The Obama administration is making life more difficult." Plus, he was right on the facts. "Palestinian did not become a common term until after 1977." That's the sort of knowledge-bomb that Republicans dream of dropping on Obama—they feel like this is right, but here's a candidate who can say so.

And then Gingrich closed the loop.

"I'm a Reaganite," he said. "I'm proud to be a Reaganite. Even at the point of causing some confusion with the timid."

Who was "the timid?" Whoever viewers thought it should be. Obama. Romney. The media. All of them, as far as they're concerned, would lose in a showdown with Newt Gingrich. And this is how he won the debate.

Read More...

Summary only...

Live Comments - The ABC Republican Debate

What was the purpose of this debate? Really. Are they supposed to be debating domestic policy? Foreign policy? This is a debacle. It's an invitation for all of the candidates to form a circular firing squad around Gingrich.

35 min.: I came in at the 17 minute mark and apparently missed an actual question on jobs. At the 35 minute point, it's clear that this is not a debate designed to allow the candidates to differentiate themselves from Obama. It is, instead, being used by the snakes at ABC as a vehicle to get the candidates to throw bombs at each other - and in particular Gingrich. This is pretty horrendous really.

49 min: Faith is the topic. Great. Now we can talk about the left's war on religion in America . . . ummmm, no. Instead of that, Stephanopoulos is inviting all of the candidates to take shots at Gingrich for adultery and divorces. This is unreal. And they all do. Perry is the worst - if you commit adultery then you will always cheat and are intrinsically untrustworthy. Gingrich - I am what I am, I've made mistakes, and I hope you will evaluate me on the basis of who I am today.

55 min: Immigration. Gingrich - repeats his view of a path to residency for some illegals. Romney - get all 11 million illegal immigrants to register and go back to their country's of origin. That is absurd. Perry - finally, a good answer. Perry takes on Obama.

1:02 hrs: The topic is still immigration, yet Stephanopoulos is now inviting all people not named Gingrich to criticize him for saying that the "Palestinians" are an invented race. Gingrich was precisely right by the way. (see here) Romney is taking the position that we shouldn't be saying anything that would piss off the Muslims, regardless of the truth. This is unreal. Santorm tries to split the difference between Gingrich and Romney. Perry gives the best answer - this is a media made mountain: "This President is the problem, not something that Newt Gingrich said."

1:20 hrs: Another ridiculous question, this one apparently designed to show all the Republican candidates as fat cats - when was the last time you suffered financially like the middle class is suffering now? Romney gives a good answer - paraphrased "I have never been poor, but the answer to these problems are jobs, jobs, jobs." Paul gives a similarly good answer - paraphrased "we are destroying the middle class with bad monetary and economic policies." Santorum's answer is ridiculous. Something about having two parents.

1:28 hrs: Healthcare - The people at Yahoo want to hear more about support for the individual mandate from Romney and Gingrich. They repeat what they have already said. Paul has a good answer - paraphrase "we should never be trying to protect people from their own actions." Perry talks again about a making a "part time Congress."

1:42 hrs: What have you learned from your challengers? Santorum - credits Gingrich with teaching him conservative principals in the 1980's. Perry credits Ron Paul with introducing him to the problems of the Federal Reserve. Romney - talks about the "qualities of leadership" without answering the question. He is trying - transparently - to work into the meme that Gingrich lacks leadership. Gingrich - Perry has taught him the 10 Am., Santorum he credits with his honesty and stand on Iran. He also sites the Iowa Gov. as a role model. Paul - glad to see other candidates coming over to his positions. Bachman - no responsive answer - just "vote for me and win win win."

1:50 hrs: Spin Room - ABC is going to analysis. Gingrich - his answers were good and he is likely to solidify his support. Romney - didn't help himself, particularly with an offer to wager $10k with Rick Perry over a supposed quote from his book. Romney was right, but the 10k wager put him far out of what the average American can relate to. Bachman - helped herself, but not sufficient to cause a major change in the polls. The "conventional wisdom" from Matthew Dowd is that Newt is now likely to be the Republican nominee.

Read More...

Summary only...