Romney Considering Taking a Pass on Future Debates
From Byron York in today's Washington Examiner:
After a debate in which Republican frontrunner Mitt Romney faced attacks from all sides, the Romney campaign says it has not yet accepted invitations to participate in two high-profile debates leading up to the January 31 Florida primary, and a key Romney adviser is expressing fatigue and frustration over what he sees as a never-ending series of GOP debates.
"There are too many of these," Romney strategist Stuart Stevens said after Monday night's Fox News debate at the Myrtle Beach Convention Center. "We have to bring some order to it. We haven't accepted Florida…It's kind of like a cruise that's gone on too long."
Big mistake. The prevailing sentiment amongst a big swath of the Republican electorate right now is that a Romney nomination, if it is to be inevitable, should at least be conditioned on a primary process rigorous enough to road test the candidate before he's sent into the general election. That was the rationale for Sarah Palin's quasi-endorsement of Gingrich yesterday, for Bill Kristol's call to let the primaries play out rather than rushing to a coronation (which you'll hear more about in the Ricochet podcast to be released later today), and perhaps even for Newt Gingrich's recent resurgence in national polls.
Translation: right now, there's a greater resistance to the imperious quality of Romney's inevitability argument than to Romney himself. Acting as if he's above the process will only exacerbate that tension. His people ought to realize that he's still one candidate amongst many. "Bringing some order" to the process isn't yet their prerogative.
- Comment (75)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
Comments:
Sep '10
Re: Romney Considering Taking a Pass on Future Debates
I'm shocked Romney's team even suggested such a thing. It reeks of fear. To have hinted he might skip them indicates that they're more afraid of debates than looking like he's running away. Wild.
Mar '11
Re: Romney Considering Taking a Pass on Future Debates
My bet is that Newt wins South Carolina.
I bet you're right. One home run in one debate will pique interest. But when you stand out in several debates, people are going to start taking notice. And boy, won't the race change then. Because I've maintained all along that SC is the first "real" primary, and IA was a fringe magnet , and NH is a one issue primary. Well, it looks like Santorum won IA after all, with Ron Paul a close third behind he and Romney, and of course, Romney wins NH with its tax-centric, social issues-phobic character. South Carolina's voters are much more like the rest of the nation's GOP voters.
Re: Romney Considering Taking a Pass on Future Debates
Douglas
Nobody's Perfect:
I think the standing ovation Newt Gingrich received for dressing down Juan Williams spooked Mitt's advisers. As well it should. · Jan 18 at 12:52pm
Precisely. Newt is waxing everyone on that stage. Juan Williams, Ron Paul, you name it. He dominates the stage. Everytime there's a debate, Newt's numbers shoot up. Romney's solution: stop the debates. · Jan 18 at 1:12pm
Exactly my concern. When it's time to defend and advance your cause, and carry the battle to the opposition, I don't want my guy to be the one looking for the exits. I want a fighter who will have the other guy looking for the exits.
Dec '11
Re: Romney Considering Taking a Pass on Future Debates
The attack ads write themselves:
Massachutes Pansy
Fleabagger
etc.
Re: Romney Considering Taking a Pass on Future Debates
Paul A. Rahe: Instead of bagging the debates, Romney needs to learn how to handle debates. As his partisans admit, Ted Kennedy rolled him in the debates in 1994. Obama will do the same if Romney does not improve.
I understand the impulse. Romney is at his best when engaged in methodical planning. That is his forte. The debates reward the quick-witted, and politics more generally does the same. If he cannot make mincemeat of Gingrich, Paul, Santorum, and Perry, he may go down to defeat when faced with Obama. Politics is the art of persuasion, and Romney needs to work at it until he is much, much better. · Jan 18 at 12:58pm
This is a point I wholeheartedly agree with, and hinted at less capably in the college feed. We already know Obama can run an allstar campaign, and Romney does not appear to be ready for that.
Aug '10
Re: Romney Considering Taking a Pass on Future Debates
All you Newt supporters act like the debates are the most important part of the election, primarily because your man does so well at them.
I've got news for you - there is much, much more to being an effective president than just being a powerful debater. Newt has proven to be a master debater but a lousy executive. Romney is a decent debater but a great executive, which makes him preferable in my eyes.
Furthermore, if you think that the debates will be the decisive factor in the general election you're mistaken - I wager Obama will only agree to 1 or 2 debates at most. Besides, GW Bush was a lousy debater and he won two elections so that tells you how important debating skills are.
Dec '11
Re: Romney Considering Taking a Pass on Future Debates
Frozen Chosen: All you Newt supporters act like the debates are the most important part of the election, primarily because your man does so well at them.
I've got news for you - there is much, much more to being an effective president than just being a powerful debater. Newt has proven to be a master debater but a lousy executive. Romney is a decent debater but a great executive, which makes him preferable in my eyes.
Furthermore, if you think that the debates will be the decisive factor in the general election you're mistaken - I wager Obama will only agree to 1 or 2 debates at most. Besides, GW Bush was a lousy debater and he won two elections so that tells you how important debating skills are. · Jan 18 at 2:04pm
Really, a deeply unpopular governor of no note outside of writting Obama's health care law for him, and not running for reelection because he was going to lose is the hallmark of what we want in a president? Sorry but Romney is not Bush, not by a long shot.
Edited on January 18, 2012 at 11:11pmAug '11
Re: Romney Considering Taking a Pass on Future Debates
Frozen Chosen:
I've got news for you - there is much, much more to being an effective president than just being a powerful debater.
Sure. But first you have to get elected.
Sep '10
Re: Romney Considering Taking a Pass on Future Debates
Frozen Chosen: All you Newt supporters act like the debates are the most important part of the election, primarily because your man does so well at them.
I've got news for you - there is much, much more to being an effective president than just being a powerful debater. Newt has proven to be a master debater but a lousy executive. Romney is a decent debater but a great executive, which makes him preferable in my eyes.
It isn't just debates. Romney can't put the right words together to defend himself about anything. He may just be used to having a certain amount of power, be it at Bain or as a one term Governor and he just doesn't understand the abstractions behind the discussions. To him capitalism is a good thing, but he apparently doesn't understand why, or he doesn't know how to articulate why. His taxes are "at about 15%" , okay, but he doesn't think to inform people that he already paid taxes on that money at the normal rate. After 8 years of Bush/Rove ignoring attacks, this isn't the kind of reaction I am looking for in a candidate.
Aug '10
Re: Romney Considering Taking a Pass on Future Debates
DrewInWisconsin
Frozen Chosen:
I've got news for you - there is much, much more to being an effective president than just being a powerful debater.
Sure. But first you have to get elected. · Jan 18 at 2:16pm
And the angry badger throwing red meat to the faithful is a sure ticket to get over 50% in the general election, no doubt.
Apr '11
Re: Romney Considering Taking a Pass on Future Debates
DrewInWisconsin
Frozen Chosen:
I've got news for you - there is much, much more to being an effective president than just being a powerful debater.
Sure. But first you have to get elected. · Jan 18 at 2:16pm
Uh, yeah. That, of course, is Gingrich's big problem.
Aug '10
Re: Romney Considering Taking a Pass on Future Debates
Guruforhire
Really, a deeply unpopular governor of no note outside of writting Obama's health care law for him, and not running for reelection because he was going to lose is the hallmark of what we want in a president? Sorry but Romney is not Bush, not by a long shot. · Jan 18 at 2:10pm
Edited on Jan 18 at 02:11 pm
You're right, Romney probably would've lost if he'd stood for relection in MA - but only because he governed too conservatively for a blue state like MA, which is a plus in my book.
As far as Bush goes, I think Rick Perry has demonstrated how bright you have to be to be a successful governor in Texas...
Sep '10
Re: Romney Considering Taking a Pass on Future Debates
Frozen Chosen
DrewInWisconsin
Frozen Chosen:
I've got news for you - there is much, much more to being an effective president than just being a powerful debater.
Sure. But first you have to get elected. · Jan 18 at 2:16pm
And the angry badger throwing red meat to the faithful is a sure ticket to get over 50% in the general election, no doubt. · Jan 18 at 2:22pm
Anger is in the eye of the beholder. I've been seeing people call Newt "angry" and I just don't see it. What some people mean when they say "angry" is non-deferential, forceful, clear, concise, passionate and blunt. That means "angry" for them.
Dec '11
Re: Romney Considering Taking a Pass on Future Debates
Frozen Chosen
Guruforhire
Really, a deeply unpopular governor of no note outside of writting Obama's health care law for him, and not running for reelection because he was going to lose is the hallmark of what we want in a president? Sorry but Romney is not Bush, not by a long shot. · Jan 18 at 2:10pm
Edited on Jan 18 at 02:11 pm
You're right, Romney probably would've lost if he'd stood for relection in MA - but only because he governed too conservatively for a blue state like MA, which is a plus in my book.
As far as Bush goes, I think Rick Perry has demonstrated how bright you have to be to be a successful governor in Texas... · Jan 18 at 2:28pm
I dont buy that at all.
Aug '11
Re: Romney Considering Taking a Pass on Future Debates
wmartin
DrewInWisconsin
Frozen Chosen:
I've got news for you - there is much, much more to being an effective president than just being a powerful debater.
Sure. But first you have to get elected.
Uh, yeah. That, of course, is Gingrich's big problem.
And it's Romney's problem. It's the problem that faces all the GOP candidates. If Mitt Romney cannot convince voters to support him -- and debates are one of the ways that is done -- then it doesn't matter if he governs like the second coming of Ronald Reagan; he won't get elected.
Edited on January 18, 2012 at 11:45pmAug '10
Re: Romney Considering Taking a Pass on Future Debates
Franco
Frozen Chosen
DrewInWisconsin
Frozen Chosen:
I've got news for you - there is much, much more to being an effective president than just being a powerful debater.
Sure. But first you have to get elected. · Jan 18 at 2:16pm
And the angry badger throwing red meat to the faithful is a sure ticket to get over 50% in the general election, no doubt. · Jan 18 at 2:22pm
Anger is in the eye of the beholder. I've been seeing people call Newt "angry" and I just don't see it. What some people mean when they say "angry" is non-deferential, forceful, clear, concise, passionate and blunt. That means "angry" for them. · Jan 18 at 2:30pm
Bingo! You've just described a large share of independent voters - that squishy 6-10% in the middle. Those are the people Newt will have a very hard time winning over because they value style over substance.
Apr '11
Re: Romney Considering Taking a Pass on Future Debates
DrewInWisconsin
wmartin
DrewInWisconsin
Frozen Chosen:
I've got news for you - there is much, much more to being an effective president than just being a powerful debater.
Sure. But first you have to get elected.
Uh, yeah. That, of course, is Gingrich's big problem.
And it's Romney's problem. It's the problem that faces all the GOP candidates. If Mitt Romney cannot convince voters to support him -- and debates are one of the ways that is done -- then it doesn't matter if he's the second coming of Ronald Reagan; he won't get elected. · Jan 18 at 2:37pm
Barack Obama is not exactly a champion debater, and Romney, in general, does well in debates. Yes, he had a mediocre night on Monday, but his batting average over the 3,782 debates we have had this year is quite high.
Re: Romney Considering Taking a Pass on Future Debates
With the utmost respect, let me suggest that the ability to articulate a philosophy that a majority of Americans agree with, in such a way that eviscerates the utopian nonsense of the left and exposes the disastrous consequences of collectivism, isn't something that can be blithely dismissed as a skill to be employed once or twice during an election, never to be utilized again.
Whomever we nominate will receive an avalanche of negative press, "gotcha" questions, idiots that disrupt speeches, and a relentless tidal wave of attacks from Obama and his acolytes. And if our nominee wins, there will be a quantum leap in these attacks. The skills that some here dismiss will be sorely needed from start to finish.
I, for one, and tired of the weak-kneed and timid who do everything but apologize for being a conservative. If you can't advance your case to people on your own side, how can you be trusted to advance it when the real attacks come?
Dec '10
Re: Romney Considering Taking a Pass on Future Debates
I really don't get the confidence people have in Romney. He's a bloodless rhetorician and unpersuasive. He's seen as a Wall Street insider, and we all know how popular those types are with Americans from Tea Partiers to Occupiers and all manner of moderate Americans in between. His campaign is being financed by Goldman Sachs and the rest of Wall Street, minus Bain, and it won't matter a jot that those same firms supported Barack Obama in 2008, if that news ever escapes the "common knowledge" memory hole. The moderate vote we're coveting will be convinced by the complicit media that Wall Street was enlightened when it supported Obama and is eeevill for supporting Romney.
How, exactly, is Romney going to win over moderates again? And why is Santorum such an objectionable alternative to undisciplined Newt and uninspiring Mitt?
Re: Romney Considering Taking a Pass on Future Debates
Frozen Chosen: All you Newt supporters act like the debates are the most important part of the election, primarily because your man does so well at them.
I've got news for you - there is much, much more to being an effective president than just being a powerful debater. Newt has proven to be a master debater but a lousy executive. Romney is a decent debater but a great executive, which makes him preferable in my eyes.
Furthermore, if you think that the debates will be the decisive factor in the general election you're mistaken - I wager Obama will only agree to 1 or 2 debates at most. Besides, GW Bush was a lousy debater and he won two elections so that tells you how important debating skills are. · Jan 18 at 2:04pm
The debates may well be decisive. GWB was up against Gore and Kerry -- neither especially good on his feet. If Romney cannot successfully defend himself against his Republican adversaries, Obama will destroy him.
I do not prefer Gingrich to Romney for reasons I have spelled out in detail. But if Romney was such a great executive, why was he unable to get re-elected?