I wanted to make a few political observations about last night’s GOP debate, which I thought was quite a good one overall.
Several times, Mitt Romney had a chance to go after Newt Gingrich, and he pulled back from doing so. That leads me to think his campaign team must believe Gingrich is quickly losing altitude in Iowa and the week-long attacks on Gingrich have taken a toll on the former Speaker. The Romney campaign, it appears, concluded there was no need for the former Massachusetts governor to go after Gingrich at this point, on that stage; and the risks of a confrontation, which had the potential to get ugly, were greater than the rewards. (It can’t have hurt Romney that Michele Bachmann went after Gingrich hard on both Freddie Mac and life issues.)
If Gingrich’s lead in Iowa was in the double digits, you can be sure Romney would not have declined the invitation to attack Gingrich.
Gingrich, on the other hand, went out of his way to appear agreeable and recapture the “Uncle Newt” image that helped catapult him to the top of the polls. In that respect, I thought Gingrich did quite well, even if his irritation with Michele Bachmann was barely contained.
Overall, I thought both Romney and Gingrich had a very good night. The big loser was Ron Paul, whose stand on Iran is incoherent, discrediting and has limited appeal in a GOP primary.
Right now, Romney, Gingrich, and Paul are bunched at the top in Iowa, with the second-tier candidates not all that far behind. There are 18 days left before the Iowa caucus – which in this particular political year means the situation can dramatically shift several times between now and January 3.
The chess match continues.
And Peter Wehner is a paid consultant for the super-geniuses of Team Romney. I can see why he wouldn't want anyone to know that. I sure wouldn't. Still, it would be helpful if he were more up front about his bias.
Peter, I wish Paul Begala could read your article. over at the daily beast he's whining that Romney wouldn't attack Gingrich in the debate. I commented that he didn't need to. and you confirmed that here. n nMitt may not be our perfect dream candidate, but he's the best we have, and the ONLY possible chance to beat Obama.
If we know he's a consultant, then it suggests he's done his job in getting the word out. n nI would have voted for Romney next November — if he got the nomination … and that's even after he came to Ohio (where I live) and didn't want to take sides in the public sector union's over-turning the state limits on any of their bargaining rights, thus standing up for government unions to get more and more and even more than that — however, he came across as articulate in the debate last night, if rather slick, and I won't have to hold my nose if I have to vote for him (even if he's not nearly as electable, in my opinion, as Gingrich who can explain _persuasively_ why Obama is not the greatest President to ever live — and do it in a way the MSM can't cover it up).
I'd love to see Romney going after someone — Gingrich or whomever — just rip their face off or something, to show he can actually do he can actually do it; it would allay my big fear about him that he can't compete with Obama. I just remember how McCain would rip him apart and he would not know how to respond, and McCain was an amatuer compared with Obama.