After nine months on the periphery of the Republican race, tonight’s debate in Mesa, Arizona, was Rick Santorum’s opportunity to show he deserved to be considered a frontrunner. But instead of using the occasion to build on the surge that led him to the top of the national polls, the former senator flopped as Mitt Romney and Ron Paul pounded him unmercifully from the start of the evening to its finish. By the end of the night, the grim look on his face betrayed the effect of having to explain his stands on issues such as earmarks, being a “team player” in the Senate and his support for Arlen Specter and “No Child Left Behind.” Whereas in previous debates, he had been on the attack pointing out Romney’s inconsistencies, in Mesa, it was his turn to be on the defensive.
Though Romney was far from brilliant and took his own lumps over his own hypocritical positions on earmarks and healthcare, there was little question he emerged the victor if only because Santorum came across as both long-winded and surly. If recent polls in Michigan showed the Pennsylvanian’s momentum was slowing, this debate may have put a period on his brief moment in the lead. A good night for Santorum might have helped put him over the top in Michigan and maybe even in Arizona next week and done irreparable harm to Romney’s hopes. But we may look back at this night and say this moment was not only when Santorum began to fade but also when Romney salted away the nomination.
Ironically, it was on his weakest point — his position on contraception — that Santorum sounded the strongest when he parried a question on the issue and made the point that promiscuity and the breakdown of the family was doing great damage to society. No one on the stage disagreed with him on that.
Yet that was overshadowed by the way Santorum found himself getting buried on his Senate record of voting for spending bills and earmarks. Romney’s attack on this was, as Santorum pointed out, deeply hypocritical since he relied on congressional earmarks to fund the 2002 Winter Olympics that he led. But whatever good he did with that retort was lost by his angry replies to attacks on his record, especially the way he went along with the Senate leadership on a number of issues. Santorum was clearly exasperated by having to defend himself in this manner and it showed. He discovered it is a lot harder to score points in a debate when you are wearing the bull’s eye on your back that goes with being in the lead.
Santorum’s failure once again should allow Romney to vault back into the lead. It will also give him the momentum that may allow him to hold onto Michigan after falling behind there.
Newt Gingrich was back in strong debate form and even managed to do so while avoiding joining in the gang tackle of Santorum. Ron Paul also had a strong night belaboring Santorum on government spending from a purist point of view though whatever advantage he gained in the battle to avoid last place was lost by his attempt to rationalize Iran’s nuclear quest at the same time as the other three Republicans were uniting to blast President Obama’s failure to stop the Islamist regime.
But the only real winner was Romney, who was repeatedly able to take down the man who is leading him in Michigan. Rick Santorum had one shot at solidifying his status as a frontrunner but failed. The ripple effect of this defeat will be felt in every state where he hoped to compete.
I was not impressed with the moderator or the style — it struck me very much like the Jerry Springer shows of yore. And I thought it very poor form where Romney shouted down the moderator at the start of the debate. n nThat said, I really would like to live in the state that Romney was discussing — instead, I live in Massachusetts where I am REQUIRED TO purchase abortion services as "a condition of breathing" as one commentator put it recently. Every insurance plan sold in MA — including those sold to Catholic employer's employees — is REQUIRED to include abortions. By contrast, that of Federal Employees does *not* — at least after 1997 or so. n nMy jaw dropped when Mitt Romney said that. And when he said that he didn't raise taxes — Barbara Anderson of Citizens for Limited Taxation (CLT) dubbed him "MittFee" for all the 'fees' he was raising, including a tax on nursing home bills (that may have been Jane Swift). n nHe took what had been a $5/lifetime ID card required to own a gun and made it a $100 every four years "fee", saying "anyone who can't afford it doesn't have to own a gun." Worse was what his Lt Gov said for the admin — elders were living in homes they had purchased years earlier and owned outright, but were having trouble with the ever-increasing local real estate taxes — the response was 'they are overhoused and should sell the homes to pay the taxes and then move into a one-room apartment. n nAnd the other untold story is how unhealthy Ron Paul looks.
Fees are not taxes. They are costs associated with a service and a very conservative way of running the government. If I don't want to pay the tax, I don't get the service. n
" Rick Santorum had one shot at solidifying his status as a frontrunner but failed to do it and the ripple effect of this defeat will be felt in every state where he hoped to compete." That's quite a statement. Maybe, maybe not. While his performance wan't as good as his performances in the past, and was often on the defensive, I didn't sense any major gaffe either. As a matter of fact, his response to the contraception question actually could strengthen his support among values voters in the GOP primary in Michigan. It's funny and mysterious what drives voters to a particular candidate, especially in this primary.
Well, "vaulting into the lead"!!!!! Mittens can count on at least the votes of the Commentary editorial staff and his family in the general elections!!! Landslide! But Ron is up there in years and each decade brings its additional toll of frailty and vulnerability. It wouldn't surprise if the breaks he is taking are health related. But there's something past due date about the whole tenor of these intra GOP skirmishes.
One did not even have to read Mr. Tobin's postings during the debate or this one, nor actually watch the debate, to know with certainty exactly what he would say. That is because it has become almost formulaic. If Romney is not "in the lead" going into a debate, the other "frontrunner" had a horrible night. Not, mind you, because of something the frontrunner said, but because he was the focus of attack from the moderator(s)/questioner(s) and the other candidates. Where Romney has been "in the lead" going into a debate, Mr. Tobin will acknowledge only that others did well if it is patently obvious (see Newt's performance in the South Carolina debate), but Romney never "flops". n nIt has become tiring to read this "analysis", whoever one might support. Fortunately, it looks as though these debates are coming to an end.
by the way Jonathan, should the Mittbot 2.0b.345 strategerize his way into the White House (an inauguration graced by flying pigs) let's hope that his de facto alliance with Ron Paul against the non-Romneys doesn't extend beyond tactics to end up as another reflection of the fundamental flaw in his affectless flip-flop compartmentalizations of core convictions from one political race to the next. n nIs there any reason to have faith that his current support for Israel is built on firm foundations rather than being yet another house seated on shifting sands during low tide?
I have to agree. n nFor all of Romney's socially conservative values expressed yesterday, this is the same man who told Notaries (authorized to conduct marriages under MA law, although most merely document things for banks and insurance firms) that they could either promise to conduct gay marriages or resign their commissions (which in many cases would mean loose their job in the bank, etc.). n nThis is not saying that folk in the business of conducting marriages had to marry the gay or lesbian couple along with the hetero ones, but that folk WHO HAD NEVER MARRIED ANYONE ELSE had to agree to drop everything and marry the gay couple. For free, apparently, which raises a 13th Amd issue as well… n n(An interesting thought that no one raised at the time — all licensed attorneys are also considered notaries under MA law.) n nGeorge Will said it best — another value-neutral technocrat governor from Massachusetts — and Romney is not unlike Dukakas in many ways. Both very bright, both faithful to a wife with a disability, both members of a minority religion considered outside the mainstream (I believe Dukakas is Greek Orthodox), both morally flexible technocrats. (Mike Dukakas lost the 1978 primary and when he came back in 1982 he essentially became a DINO.) n nRomney may support Israel today – but tomorrow??? Santorum, like most conservative Christians, has a bedrock 'there must be a safe and secure Israel' belief that is not going to change. Ever.
It's one thing to be value neutral or pragmatic or moderate or whatever; it is another kettle of fish to fervently espouse one's moderation and market oneself as a very non-conservative independent one day and the next election cycle proclaim one's fervent conservative values to the extent one attacks opponents for supporting policies, practices, and politicians that nicely track one's own career. Notaries are cool, it's like a priestly sect with their stamps and their mysterious power to change mundane pieces of paper to legally recognized instruments.
Romney reclaims front runner, because he is the best debater consistently, and has a solid nrecord not tied to Washington big spending programs.
Santorum was not Presidential in that debate. Paul made him look fake, Newt made him look like a scared rabbit, Romney made him look like a pretender and Rick mad himself look like he should have been on Saturday Night Live. The only reason he moved up in the polls was the hope that social conservative might translate into fiscal conservative. From factcheck.org "Santorum made one false and one exaggerated statement when defending his earmarks — which are pet projects added to the annual spending bills at the request of members of Congress: Santorum said that when he was in Congress the members would "publicly request" earmarks in an "open process." That's not true. The rules requiring public disclosure did not pass until 2007 — after Santorum left office. Santorum, however, is the one misrepresenting the facts. Members of Congress did not have to publicly disclose their earmarks when he was in Congress. The requests were privately submitted to the relevant appropriations committees. Even earmarks that were inserted into spending bills did not carry the sponsors' names. Public disclosure was left up to the individual members, many of whom took credit for projects in their districts or states." The claim that he was rated the most fiscally conservative senator does not even agree with the study he quoted. Either a bluff lie, blatant lie or just wasn't ready with facts. Not presidential=Santorum
Santorum remains the only one of the four contenders who comes across as a guy you could sit down and watch a baseball game with… that's an aire of everyman authenticity, and it's what allows him to "get into the weeds" of talking earmarks seeming to explain himself rather than, as Wacky Uncle Ron Paul attempted to portray him, as making excuses. His honesty about the No Child Left Behind regret works to his favor. n n
Ok so you can sit down and watch a baseball game with Santorum and have a beer with him, dinner, etc, Does that qualify him for President? Some reality check for you: Santorum was the biggest loser last night. He was on the defensive explaining his earmarks, votes for Arlen Specter, funding Planned Parenthood. He did not look good and exposed him as a fake conservative who is very liberal on govt spending and for choosing a pro-abortion candidate over a conservative one and for funding Planned Parenthood that performs hundreds of thousands of abortions. His vote for Child Left behind was taking one for the team which means he puts his party first over his core principle which he is claiming to be. The guy is a hypocrite. Stop drinking the kool aid and face hard facts!
I'll take Mitt Romney any day. I see Santorum as big government, unethical, do-as-I-say, not-as-I-do guy. n nEvery major media outlet said Romney won; I guess the delusional can't accept that.
We have someone in the whitehouse you could sit down and enjoy a beer with. How is that working out for ya????? huh?????
Tobin is way off. Santorum will capture the nomination because he has real passion that draws voters. His conservatism is so heartfelt that it trumps the money and organization of Romney, who lacks conviction. Romney is running for a job and Santorum is running for a cause.
rick did fine considering he had it coming from all sides…
No Child Left Behind was a successful attempt by President Bush to make some really incompetent teachers and school districts that were out in the weeds get in gear and bring all of their students up to a measureable standard of reading, writing, and math. Teachers complained because they had to "teach to the test". Get real, the test was measuring what kids should know at different grade levels and what every teacher should have already taught successfully. IF you give kids a standardized test you can diagnose what their deficiencies are and be able to address them. What is wrong with that?A competent teacher would already have taught what the test was asking for. All kids in our society need to have test taking skills as well. The people who got caught with their pants down were not doing the job they should have been and were caught being incompetent. Of course they complained.
Ron Paul never advocated defeat like Obama or Carter. He explicitly said cut money from Middle East fiends and return the money here.
Yeah Mitt was amazing he's done so much more than Newt and so much smarter and so much better speaker. Well maybe none of that. Oh yeah Newt 20 years raised some feathers and slept around that' makes him the devil. If you really think America needs a great president in this time please think again commentary. You were once visionary now you just vote for white bread.
Santorum comes across as a spoiled child, much like Barack Obama.
By that reasoning, all Congresscritters and governors who sought earmarks for their constituencies would be not allowing their constituencies to be "patsies for the rest of the nation." The hypocrisy is in seeking ear marks for Massachusetts and the Olympics but criticizing Santorum for seeking ear marks for Pennsylvania.
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. n nNewt is still the smartest guy in any room he enters. I can't wait to see him absolutely destroy the affirmative action usurper, that closet Muslim fascist occupying our White House.
I agree. I am fairly conservative, but the thing is – the GOP needs a candidate that also appeals to independents. And right now, most people are concerned about the economy. Obama is not doing the job in this area. Romney is the candidate who understands finances better than any other. He has a resume in this area that is full of success. I am not in love with the man, but I am not looking for a pastor or a date, I am looking for a competent executive. Plus, it's sorta nice that he actually was loyal to his wife while she was going through her battle with MS.
I agree. The United States is a big business and needs to have a chief executive who understands how to run a successful business as well as a person who has been the governor of a state. Executive leadership is essential. The other 3 wannabees will need to do on the job training just like Obama. Obama has surrounded himself by academics who have no idea about running a successful business. The American culture developed through risk taking and very hard work with tangible rewards for personal discipline and sacrifice. Romney has made himself a lot of money and he knows how to set the stage to make all of us successful and wealthy again. Given the chance this economy will boom and lead the world. American workers are the best! Romney is the only one who knows how the rubber hits the road. He has been there many times over and will restore the opportunity for everyone to reach for the American Dream. Furthermore, he is patriotic, family centered,brilliant and reasonable. What a concept.
Ron Paul's opposition to the Civil War, to Abraham Lincoln, and his vocal insistence that Bush Sr and Reagan were involved with the CIA in selling drugs to finance secret wars might, yes, be a drawback electorally. And his advocacy for abolishing all income taxes and supporting an army on tarrifs might hit an electoral wall. But Romney will be effective to what ends? If he can get elected–possibly he will end up turning off independents and moderates too as well as conservatives. After all, now he is big red state conservative before conservative audiences; he'll do another 180 turn in the general elections and folks won't notice? Can he count on being electable in blue states after this primary to-the-right campaign.