Tonight’s Republican presidential debate on CNN was the last one before the Florida primary as well as the last one for almost a month. That made it critical for Newt Gingrich, the man whose candidacy has largely depended on success in debates to do well tonight. But instead of another triumph in which he was able to use attacks on the moderators and his rivals, Gingrich came out flat. While there is little doubt Rick Santorum did the best of any of the candidates tonight and Ron Paul had a few good jokes, the real winner was Mitt Romney, who attacked Gingrich relentlessly and with good effect.
Gingrich’s poor performance not only undermines his argument that he would trounce Barack Obama in debates but also squandered what might be his last chance to turn the momentum of the race around. Gingrich’s usual trick of turning on the moderator flopped. So did his attacks on Romney. Along with Gingrich, Romney took a pounding from Santorum but even that worked to his benefit. Any votes Santorum gains in Florida will be at Gingrich’s expense. The Jacksonville debate may have sealed Gingrich’s fate in Florida and perhaps the entire race.
Romney came out strong, taking Gingrich to task for his attacks on him and then followed up by taking the former speaker to task on his connection with Freddie Mac. Gingrich then attempted to deflect a Wolf Blitzer question about his attacks on Romney’s finances back on the moderator. But, unfortunately for Gingrich, Blitzer would have none of it. The result was that he was made to look foolish while Romney took him further to task. That was a pattern that repeated itself throughout the evening as Gingrich missed opportunities to make points at his rival’s expense and never was able to seize a moment and get the boisterous crowd behind him. Instead, it was Romney who got more applause for his aggressive focus on Gingrich’s weak points, including his latest “grandiose” idea: a moon colony plan that he denounced as a blatant pander.
Yet, while the first hour looked to be a runaway for Romney, Santorum’s ability to turn the issue of his Massachusetts health care bill on him changed the dynamic of the event. From then on, it was Santorum who was more or less in charge, including a stirring statement about the connection between faith and the rights guaranteed in the Declaration of Independence.
But despite his good showing, Santorum has little chance in Florida. He did not even have the money to buy television ads in Florida and has decided not to stay in the state on Tuesday night to await the primary results. That means any strength he gains there in the last days as a result of his powerful debate showings will merely be conservative votes taken away from a fading Gingrich. Indeed, on the basis of this night at least, it was clear that the best “not Romney” on the stage was Santorum, not Gingrich.
While Romney was put back on his heels by Santorum’s withering scolding about his health care bill, his performance was still, along with Monday’s debate in Tampa, a reversal of previous debates in which he had been battered by Gingrich. Instead, it was the former speaker who was constantly forced on the defensive. Having come into the hall needing a knockout to get back on top in Florida, Gingrich found himself being clearly bested on points. While the volatility of the GOP race is such that it is perilous to make predictions, after this debacle it’s hard to see how Gingrich prevents a Romney win in Florida next Tuesday. After today, the talk of Romney’s inevitability, which had disappeared in the days since South Carolina, may resume.
What’s with all these fustian Victorianisms?
“Romney came out strong taking Gingrich to task” What? taking Gingrich to task? “But, unfortunately for Gingrich, Blitzer would have none of it.” You sir, are a cad! Well, let’s see the takeaway is that although “Romney was put back on his heels,” it was “Romney who attacked Gingrich relentlessly and with good effect.” Good show! And so, on to the inevitable ” After today, the talk of Romney’s inevitability, which had disappeared in the days since South Carolina, may resume.”
Or not.
Could be after straggling into Tampa at the end of this roadshow the GOP delegates may just collectively shrug WTF and nominate that nice Cuban gentleman handling the valet parking.
What's with all these fustian Victorianisms? n n"Romney came out strong taking Gingrich to task" What? taking Gingrich to task? "But, unfortunately for Gingrich, Blitzer would have none of it." I'll have none of this–you sir, are a cad! Well, let's see the takeaway is that although "Romney was put back on his heels," it was "Romney who attacked Gingrich relentlessly and with good effect." Good show! And so, on to the inevitable " After today, the talk of Romney’s inevitability, which had disappeared in the days since South Carolina, may resume." n nOr not. n nCould be after straggling into Tampa at the end of this roadshow the GOP delegates may just collectively shrug WTF and nominate that nice Cuban gentleman handling the valet parking.
Baal Shem Tov, I don't understand what you mean at all.
I think the VP slot has been on the agenda for the "nice Cuban gentleman handling the valet parking". Not sure it still is. n nAs for the "fustian Victorianisms" … hadn't noticed, but you're right — quaint. Conan Doyle?
I have to admit I agree with the judgment of Gingrich's poor performance. His attacks seem petty (like attacking someone for owning stock in a company he owns stock in) — and (my own gripe) didn't everybody miss the chance to point out that the Democratic controlled Congress refused to take the steps in 2007 and 2008 to fix the regulations forcing these companies to give mortgages to people who couldn't pay them? Anyhow, Romney was at his best — and probably didn't lose any votes and possibly even gained some who might have voted for Gingrich, but he was still flat and uninspired and telling people not to get excited about an issue (Obamacare). It's true from my experience in business that you are expected to keep your cool under all circumstances — as some pundit suggested was Romney's training — and I'm not sure it serves him well even when he's at his best. We'll see (and if he does bury Gingrich, possibly he can grow).
I am ecstatic that Romney had such a strong showing in this latest round of debates and unapologetically damaged Gingrich, who is not only venal but untrammeled in his inquisition against his opponents, which by how has finally come to the surface. I have no doubt that Gingrich would endanger the Republican party if he became the nominee, or president (not that I could see that happening). However engaging Gingrich's theatricality was, it now seems his repertoire of one-liners is not sufficiently virtuoso to render him unaccountable for more than a week. And as damaged as he is, it seems the recurring pattern that somehow, he will reemerge as a contender, and hope to once again encounter Romney unprepared. n nAs for Romney, he won the votes from people who don't pay attention to Santorum, but not Conservatives who don't consider electability. Many, like Sean Hannity affirm that Obama's incompetence will secure any Republican a second term: a view that is simply lazy, and remarkably chimerical. n nAs for Santorum, he's worrying to say the least. But you're bestowing him undue credit. It's not that he's brilliant, he is simply hitting home his points from the tactical upper ground of a consistent Republican record. It was hardly a fete for him to use his own spotlessness to emphasize that neither Gingrich nor Romney have as much integrity in Republican ideals as is desireable. But while Romney's moderacy is acknowledged, it is Gingrich who masquerades as a crusader on the right, and it is with Gingrich that most supporters will feel disillusioned with. Romnney's digs seemed infinitely more memorable. nCont
As for Santorum's comments on the Declaration of Independence, count me amongst those insufficiently moved. I would have responded to the contrast of inalienable G-d given rights and the mercurial nature of government given rights. It would have been so much more rousing if he had had transformed the moment into a biting remark on the size of Obama's ego, that the president feels government is so fungible with the paramount values of all time. In short, I could feel CNN's animus riplling beneath the surface of the question of how much religion suffuses Republican politics. There was no victory in Santorum's remarks, and he tragically suggested the primacy of the Declaration over the Constitution. The former is a historical document, and the latter the supreme law of the land that has been perpetually relevant and current due to the amendment process (if not the interpretation of the Supreme Court). n nAs for Romney, he really looked bad following Santorum's attacks on Romney care. he needs to seems like his dispute with Obamacare is its unbridled purview, rather than its efficacy A constitutional stance would be the most convincing given his shoddy record, and help to alleviate my qualms on who he'd appoint to the supreme court. He should say that it was federally constitutional to mandate healthcare as the governor of a state, but it wouldn't be legal at the federal level. n nAs far as Ron Paul, I'm not satiated by his outright dismissal on this blog Commentary. I think his foreign policy view is really short sighted. If he ran as the Republican in an election against Obama, I would simply not vote, or perhaps vote Libertarian. That being said, his campaign has been a foudroyant in this election. He has an integrity to his out of the box approach that is certainly likeable and interesting. It is rousing young people, and he is raising a plethora of contrarian viewpoints that are sufficiently engaging (economically), or even wildly innacurate/suicidal (foreign policy) enough that they should be addressed on Contentions in a serious, and thorough manner. Ron Paul is certainly an important development that could foreseably gain traction later on, which Commentary should be on the vanguard of discussing. I'd love to see a perspective on switching to the gold standard, or an analysis of to what degree he is right about the damage of nation building * even if that seems helplessly anti neo-Con. It never huts to create a wider spectrum of analysis on this type of site. It can only help in fact, and help guide its most compelling points to enliven the mainstream Conservative view. I'm grateful that he is aligning (in the loosest sense) with us, and not the left. The left should remain stagnant and indiscriminant. n nI also applaud Romney for his loyalty to his wife through breast cancer and multiple sclerosis in his wife. In comparison, Gingrich looked like a poltroon, by comparison, absquatulating from two marriages with a facsimile of troubles.
InTrade has Romney at 91% to win, Gingrich at 9%. n nI'm so impressed by Romney's ability to adjust & improve. People said he needed to connect more with people? Okey doke. So he eyeballs a consistently evasive Newt throughout the debate then vaults off the stage into the audience afterward (not quite Jack Black in School of Rock, but just enough self-assurance for our next commander-in-chief). He makes a beeline for the camera, gives a quick & confident few remarks and moves right on through the crowd with genuine magnetism. n nThe so-called Newt Swarm was/is a correct and reassuring response. I was happy to let all of Newt's indiscretions and nonsense lie dormant, remembering only his good points, until he posed a genuine threat to me, my party and my country. As Newt himself would advise in that situation, the threat must be vanquished. n nI hope we saw Newt beginning to retreat and craft a graceful exit. Not sure though. I won't trust him till he's all the way gone. Or he shows up in a Gold or Reverse Mortgage commercial. I am looking forward to Newt fundamentally self-deporting with dramatic speed.
Aaron Lasker and Sally Vee must be the same person??r n — same typos and lack of paragraphing, though making good points
It's not us, it's a gremlin in the software that happens sometimes, removing line breaks and turning some punctuation into garbage text. I think (but am not sure) it happens if you write your comment outside of this box, say on the moon colony, then paste it in. n nThis reply will be a good test. I am typing "in house" so to speak, and we shall see if the line breaks and apostrophes, etc. display correctly. Please do let me know.
And no, I do not know Mr. Lasker. But I envy his Wm. F Buckley level vocabulary. I had to google absquatulating, which did not show up in my desktop Ultra Lingua dictionary.
"Santorum did the best of any of the candidates….the real winner was Mitt Romney."?? If you do the BEST in a debate, YOU won the debate. Any idiot knows that. Therefore, by YOUR own admission, Santorum won the debate. He did the best, so HE WON. Hello??!!__Robert Broom__Papillion, NE