Extended Irrelevance
That's how I'd characterize the GOP presidential debate held by CNN earlier tonight in Mesa, Arizona. There were a few memorable moments, but little that was likely to change the tenor of the race.
Earlier today, I posted that Romney needed to make the medicine go down a little easier for conservatives whose objections to his candidacy are stronger than their support for any of his rivals; that Santorum needed to soothe the anxieties of those who fear that nominating him would lead to a six-month sermon masquerading as a presidential campaign; and that Gingrich needed to retake the spotlight after spending most of this month gasping for the oxygen of relevancy. So how'd they do?
Romney is an exceedingly odd political creature in that he seems capable of an endless variety of tactical shifts yet totally unable to alter his campaign at the strategic level. Whether you loved him or hated him coming into tonight, it's unlikely that your opinion was changed over the course of these two hours. He had his bad moments, such as his trademark chuckling condescension when he told CNN's John King at the debate's end, "You get to ask the questions you want, I get to give the answers I want,” (and this to a softball question about what the biggest public misconception about him was). On the plus side, however, his canned, often-stilted answers actually looked professional by contrast with Santorum, who -- apart from a few responses that had obviously been prepped -- gave rambling, discursive replies throughout the evening.
Where Santorum himself was concerned, the big surprise of the night was that his Achilles' heel proved to be something other than religion, which he handled deftly (asked about contraception, he gave an eloquent response bemoaning the pathologies associated with out-of-wedlock births and concluded with a wonderfully succinct, "You know, here's the difference between me and the left, and they don't get this. Just because I'm talking about it doesn't mean I want a government program to fix it. That's what they do. That's not what we do.")
Where the former senator really stumbled was in his defense of being ... well, a former senator. Twice in the night, Santorum put the worst possible spin on senate votes that he's not particularly proud of. When Ron Paul pressed him on having voted for Title X (the Department of Health and Human Services' family planning program) as part of a broader appropriation, Santorum responded, "I think I was making it clear that, while I have a personal moral objection to it; even though I don't support it, that I voted for bills that included it." If this sounds like John Kerry on paper, it sounded even more so in the debate hall, where the audience booed. Later in the debate, when asked about No Child Left Behind by King, Santorum answered, "I have to admit, I voted for that. It was against the principles I believed in, but, you know, when you're part of the team, sometimes you take one for the team, for the leader, and I made a mistake." The booing was louder the second time around.
As for Gingrich, he came within inches of his former glory, but fell just short. Gone was the sober (verging on somnambulant) figure from the last two debates, replaced by the partisan pugilist of old. Newt was fiery and definitive, particularly when redirecting the question on social issues (having mastered the art of moderator jiu-jitsu, Gingrich's response to King's contraception question included the scolding, "not once in the 2008 campaign, not once did anybody in the elite media ask why Barack Obama voted in favor of legalizing infanticide."). As usual, he was a reliable source for applause lines, but he failed to generate a moment big enough to transcend his current morass.
Bottom line: Romney leaves the evening in about the same place. Santorum declines slightly. Gingrich improves at the margins. Ron Paul continues to follow a trajectory that will likely see him end up as the highest-paid television pitchman for gold in the nation's history.
To the extent that tonight has an influence on the upcoming voting (which I suspect will be slight), it likely works to Romney's benefit, chipping away ever so slightly at the conservative groundswell for Santorum. Tuesday's results in Arizona and Michigan will be the acid test.
- Comment (28)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (0)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Oct '10
Re: Extended Irrelevance
The Republican debates are the Left’s grooming operations for undecided voters. Those voters are now conditioned to accept that what matters is some manifestation of a Republican’s theology, not Democrats overarching ideology. Through these debates, Republicans have succeeded in perpetuating a free pass on existential issues, like Obama’s 41% increase in national debt, while at the same time permitting it to become perfectly normal to endlessly dissect Republican views on far lesser issues. And the only antidote now supposedly is Romney, who strains every day to not be controversial in the eyes of the opinion journalists conducting the debates. Sadly, once again Republicans (and Conservatives) are simply overmatched by the Left.
Jul '10
Re: Extended Irrelevance
Troy sums up last night's debate quite accurately except that he forgot to insert a yawn and a sigh.
Feb '12
Re: Extended Irrelevance
Too dismissive of some very strong moments from Romney, like his answer on Iran and Obamas attacks on religious liberty. You're also underplaying the weakness Santorum showed tonight. Expect his poll numbers which had already stalled and started to drop to falling more quickly. Santorum will lose Michigan by 10.
Sep '10
Re: Extended Irrelevance
Jun '10
Re: Extended Irrelevance
I completely disagree. This process has resulted in many of the things Obama and his campaign might say to have already been said. The knowledge has already worked its way (somewhat) into the culture. These exposures look bad now but they may serve as an inoculation of sorts. What Romney did at Bain Capital for instance was hashed out a few weeks ago. Anybody paying attention can rebut the accusations about firing people for his own gain. Should Romney get the nomination I'm sure we'll see that again but it won't be fatal.
Jun '10
Re: Extended Irrelevance
By the way, I still like Newt. I don't think he's unelectable. He alone can bring Paul supporters along with some degree of enthusiasm. And we know he'll make the media stooges look like The Three Stooges.
Drudge has posted that Romney and Paul may have a deal to make Paul the VP running mate. I guess that might negate the above. If it is true, I sure did not see that one coming.
Edited on February 23, 2012 at 2:13pmOct '10
Re: Extended Irrelevance
politicalwire Santorum aides ask: "Is Mormonism off limits?" pwire.at/xmJAz4
Re: Extended Irrelevance
I missed Romney's remarks remarks on Iran. MJMack is on the money with regard to what he said about Romney's remarks on religious liberty. They were eloquent, to the point, and elegant in the manner in which they framed the question. I, too, think that Troy mildly understated Romney's accomplishment.
Santorum could have done a better job of defending his record in the Senate. He never voted for Planned Parenthood. He faced a challenge that legislators often face -- between purity and accomplishment. Ron Paul always chooses purity, which is why he is and always will be irrelevant as a Congressman. Santorum voted for an omnibus bill including support for Planned Parenthood because the alternative would have been to reject the many valuable things in that bill. Romney's attack was a cheap shot. Santorum should have called him on it.
Re: Extended Irrelevance
Carver: By the way, I still like Newt. I don't think he's unelectable. He alone can bring Paul supporters along with some degree of enthusiasm. And we know he'll make the media stooges look like The Three Stooges.
Drudge has posted that Romney and Paul may have a deal to make Paul the VP running mate. I guess that might negate the above. If it is true, I sure did not see that one coming.· 48 minutes ago
Edited 19 minutes ago
Careful, here. This is nonsense apparently being peddled by the Santorum campaign. That Ron Paul has consistently in the debates hammered the conservative alternatives to Romney while leaving the Governor alone is true. Why he would spare the proud father of Romneycare is a question worth asking. But I find it impossible to believe that Romney would be so stupid as to make such a promise.
Re: Extended Irrelevance
How reliable is politicalwire? I am not saying that this is untrue. Santorum has some over-excited staffers, which is what one would expect -- give the fact that he had virtually no campaign staff a few weeks ago and that he has had no time in which to do an serious culling. But, still, is this reliable?
Dec '10
Re: Extended Irrelevance
I see I missed little by turning off the debate early. Some days nachos just trump all.
Nov '10
Re: Extended Irrelevance
For my part, this is the second debate I've actually watched. The first I watched on my deck with a cigar in hand, on iPad. The second, last night, in the living room on the new 60" LED Television. I like to diversify my experience. I came away less impressed by Santorum than I would have liked. "Rambling" is a perfect way to characterize his answers. I was encouraged by Romney's performance and I kill feel more comfyrtable voting for him in the general election. But, against my instincts, I find myself wanting to vote for Newt. I felt like he was the only one who consistently took it to Obama and offered concrete solutions to the problems we face.
Nov '11
Re: Extended Irrelevance
Paul A. Rahe
How reliable is politicalwire? I am not saying that this is untrue. Santorum has some over-excited staffers, which is what one would expect -- give the fact that he had virtually no campaign staff a few weeks ago and that he has had no time in which to do an serious culling. But, still, is this reliable? · 25 minutes ago
It's true. The Washington Examiner link has a follow-up from the Santorum campaign: they think it's unfair that Santorum is the only one being asked about religion -- not threatening to themselves criticize Romney, or anyone else. So far, that's not out-of-bounds, although complaining about unfairness usually gets you nowhere.
The other candidates shouldn't go there, but it wouldn't be a bad thing if the media did start on Romney's religion now. Might as well find out how he can handle it.
Re: Extended Irrelevance
Ken, I felt the same way. The guy has more baggage than American Airlines, but he is forceful, effective, and consistently knows how to go on offense.
Aug '11
Re: Extended Irrelevance
This felt like one of those debates from October, where Newt reminds us all that he's a contender, Romney gives pat answers that fail to inspire, and Ron Paul puts on the crazy uncle suit. The only difference was Rick Santorum, who I thought did better than Troy suggests. It also seemed that he probably talked twice as much as anyone else.
In defending his votes on Title X and NCLB, I thought he made about the only defense possible and plausible. You vote for things you don't particularly like because they're stuck in the same bills as things you do support, or you vote for one bill, but then you ensure that there's another bill passed to keep the worst of it in check.
I also thought Santorum ably clarified his support of Arlen Specter, and I hope people were paying attention.
In another context, this would be called "the art of compromise."
As for Mitt . . .
Edited on February 23, 2012 at 3:55pmAug '11
Re: Extended Irrelevance
As for Mitt, it's clear I think he's a terrible candidate, and I wish he'd just drop out, save his money, send it to me or something. He seemed a bit irritable last night. Or tired. Probably tired. Actually, they all looked a little tired except Rick Santorum who looked energized. (And you know, Ron Paul just looks that way. He can't help it.)
Anyway, once again Mitt himself referred to "Romneycare" by that name, which just gives me the wiggins somehow. But then he talked about Obamacare and his reasons for repealing it. The reasons he listed were all related to the cost. Not a word about freedom or liberty or government interference in personal health matters or any first principles. If he had, I might have actually started to feel like he would be acceptable. But he simply does not get it. He doesn't understand why Obamacare is an affront to liberty. Given the perfect opportunity to show us that he really understands first liberties, he failed.
Ron Paul's "He's a fake" should have been leveled at a different candidate up there.
Edited on February 23, 2012 at 4:05pmNov '10
Re: Extended Irrelevance
We're fighting a media war against NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, PBS, NPR, NYT, WAPO, LAT, and the list goes on and on. Worse still, we go to their territory to do it.
The founding fathers didn't win against the worlds greatest army and navy by going to Great Britain and fighting by their rules, they fought at home and with unconventional tactics. The candidates need to recognize the incredible advantage that they have in the New Media; by embracing the New Media and abandoning the traditional "let's let the networks run the show" mentality, both the New Media and conservatism will be strengthened, and the enemy ultimately defeated.
Edited on February 23, 2012 at 3:58pmRe: Extended Irrelevance
Leigh
Paul A. Rahe
How reliable is politicalwire? I am not saying that this is untrue. Santorum has some over-excited staffers, which is what one would expect -- give the fact that he had virtually no campaign staff a few weeks ago and that he has had no time in which to do an serious culling. But, still, is this reliable? · 25 minutes ago
It's true. TheWashington Examiner link has a follow-up from the Santorum campaign: they think it's unfair that Santorum is the only one being asked about religion -- not threatening to themselves criticize Romney, or anyone else. So far, that's not out-of-bounds, although complaining about unfairness usually gets you nowhere.
The other candidates shouldn't go there, but it wouldn't be a bad thing if the media didstart on Romney's religion now. Might as well find out how he can handle it. · 42 minutes ago
My sense is that we heard part of his answer last night, and it was superb.
Re: Extended Irrelevance
DrewInWisconsin: I also thought Santorum ably clarified his support of Arlen Specter, and I hope people were paying attention.
In another context, this would be called "the art of compromise."
. . . · 28 minutes ago
Edited 3 minutes ago
Like you, Drew, I found his explanation of his support for Arlen Specter attractive. It does make sense. You do the best you can in the circumstances you find yourself in.
Re: Extended Irrelevance
I thought that he was better than you are conceding -- especially on religious liberty.
But on this last point what you say is compelling. Like Michael Bloomberg, Romney is fiscally conservative. But he is not a conservative. He judges programs, as you make clear, from the perspective of a managerial progressive. Like the Catholic bishops, he does not consider the degree to which public provision is incompatible with political and personal liberty.