Tonight’s Debate: The Big One?
Romney needs to be prepared to be confronted with a video of him that is making the rounds on the Internet. It is from 2002, and shows him saying that his “views are progressive.” Gingrich may also bring up Romney’s admission that he was wrong to oppose the original Contract with America. Gingrich may use that position to claim that he ran to the left of Ted Kennedy during his race for the Senate.
Ron Paul is now a major threat to those on stage, and tonight’s debate should reflect that. There is a distinct possibility of him winning Iowa. The latest PPP poll has him virtually tied with Gingrich for first. In New Hampshire, he is only about three points behind Gingrich for second place in New Hampshire. Suddenly, Ron Paul has become Romney’s best friend, which explains why Romney chose him when asked which candidate he has learned from. Gingrich is bidding for Paul’s supporters by emphasizing their commonalities and by adopting his positions on auditing the Federal Reserve and reestablishing the gold standard.
Expect some major tussling between Perry, Bachmann, and Santorum tonight. Of course, all three will target Gingrich, as they gain from his loss. A recent survey determined that Gingrich, unlike Romney, is “highly vulnerable to attack” and his support is soft. As previously stated, it is imperative for each of these three that they take the third or fourth spot in Iowa. Those who don’t will probably drop out. And it’s very unclear who is winning among the three. The latest InsiderAdvantage poll has Perry in third (13%), Bachmann in fifth (10%) and Santorum in sixth (7%). PPP has Bachmann in fourth (11%), Perry in fifth (9%) and Santorum in sixth (3%).
It looks like Santorum’s number one target will be Bachmann. He is repeatedly emphasizing that he won fights in Congress, whereas she has lost. He points out that she has only served four years in the House and argues that he’s more electable: “Michele represents one of the most Republican districts in the state of Minnesota. She’s had a tough time winning those districts every time. It’s not like she’s ever had any record of success of attracting the kind of voters we need if we’re going to win this,” he recently said.
Jon Huntsman will probably focus most of his fire on Romney and possibly Paul, as those three are competing for independents and moderates in New Hampshire. He can count on the others to bring down Gingrich. He’s taken a more negative turn lately, claiming that Romney and Gingrich are no better than Obama.
The media tonight is focusing on what will happen between Gingrich and Romney, but both will survive Iowa. The real fight will be between Perry, Bachmann, and Santorum.
Well, nobody lost any time going after Newt, and it appears to be taking a toll.
The behind-the-scenes professional political operatives seem to be creative without limit, unless it’s about Obama, in which case they are quiet as church mice. Newt neutered the affairs issue by being humble, and the flip-flop issue is dangerous because Romney is as vulnerable as Newt is on that. So the big attack is that Gingrich is unstable, unreliable, close to insane. Why, it’s almost as if the leftists are running the attack campaign, isn’t it?
Here’s hoping Newt is cool, calm and collected tonight. If he is, he will help himself a lot, particularly if Romney appears overly agressive. Newt should point out how amazed he is that Romney has chosen to use the tactics of the left, when it is plainly obvious that Newt was the champion of conservatism as long ago as the 90′s and is still the only candidate focussed today on beating Obama.
Attacking ones’ fellow constituants: cheap.
Attacking the current administration and their minions: priceless.
We are damned tied of these guys attacking each other..it’s childish and ridiculous…
Conservatives need a couple of JAMES CARVILLE TYPES..
BHO will be reelected, by hook or by crook…the right is a pile of milquetoast..attacking each other is ridiculous.
A very humorous article in a world where Ron Paul doesn’t exist and a bunch of clones are running against each other, great peace of fiction you have here
Actually if Paul were here he’d make even more funny. He’s like that crazy grandpa with Tourette’s. Funny to listen to. Just don’t take it serious.
Didn’t read page 2?
And I’d discount the PPP poles. They took into account the opinions of democrats and independents, who can’t vote in the Iowa republican caucuses.
The Gingrich/Romney snipping is pretty juvenile and not very Presidential at all. Let’s take a second look at someone else. Why not Santorum? He’s a pretty solid conservative and just about the only one left who hasn’t risen to the top (just to be knocked down). He’s got less baggage than Romney, Newt, Dr. Paul, and Perry put together.
Oh yes, a guy whose main focus is bashing gays is really going to be a winner.
Why Republicans can’t just focus on the economy is beyond me. If Bachmann in particular is disappointing – she would almost be perfect and be doing a lot better if she hadn’t started that anti-vaccine nonsense or the gay marriage crap.
No one under 40 cares about this crap unless they are crazy church people.
#4 “Why not Santorum…..He’s got less baggage……” You haven’t researched him very carefully. The country is going to economic hell in a handbasket. But Santorum keeps the focus on the social issues like abortion, gay marriage, mandating abstinence only sex education in schools, etc. Santorum is not a conservative, but rather is a religious socialist.
Bachmann is a looney tune; Gingrich is the best chance for Obama to be re-elected; and Perry is so desperate that he has tried to re-ignite the religious right’s phony “war on Christmas.” Wish Ron Paul was 10 years younger, but he does have some interesting ideas.
In the world of reality, I prefer Huntsman first and Romney second.
After tonight, I’m hopeful we will have a good understanding of who the best candidates are for Cabinet Secretaries, secretaries and cabinet makers.
I’m fearful that we won’t have a good understanding of who would make a good President.
Bachmann ruined herself with the vaccine stuff. Why she chose to go to the left of dennis kucinich on this issue is beyond me, but there you are.
Romney’s claim that Newt isn’t conservative enough doesn’t hold water, not because Newt isn’t a bit of a dilettante (though not as much as Obama), but because the claim applies as much or more to Romney himself. He’s blowing campaign cash making the case against himself.
The more dangerous critique of Newt is that he’s dangerous when he goes off script, and isn’t exactly the best Chief Executive the GOP could field. That does play to Romney’s strengths, and so I’m surprised he hasn’t focused exclusively on this line of attack. Or, better yet, let his surrogates do it and focused on attacking Barack Obama. His machinations are too transparent, and that they are so obvious only makes conservatives more wary that they’re being played, too.
Santorum’s two main problems are that A) he’s this year’s Huckabee, and B) his main strengths are in an area that isn’t relevant to most voters and that most of his opponents largely agree on anyway. On economics, foreign policy, civil liberties, has anyone ever asked, “Well, what insights does Santorum have?” He was at his best as a Senator, able to focus on his strengths. He’s no great shakes as an executive. So what’s his attraction? He alienates the libertarian conservatives to no gain anywhere else.
Perry could still make a comeback. If he were smart, he’d be playing to survive, ready to catch his moment when/if Newt implodes. He’d be in debate boot camp with his handlers to fix what as far as anyone can tell is his only major flaw.
Huntsman has Pawlenty Syndrome. If he’s running for David Brooks’s seat on the NYTimes editorial page, then he’s a shoo-in. Otherwise, an otherwise attractive candidate has check-mated himself with his own rhetoric. That makes me question his judgment right there. I’m sure Pawlenty is kicking himself A) that he jumped out so precipitously and B) that he wasted support in the conservative movement on a bogus slur against someone who isn’t even running. If he’d kept his damn mouth shut, he’d be the Frontrunner.
I’m not in an early state, so the decision will have been made by the time it’s gotten to me. I’ll have the luxury of deciding between either Romney and Not-Romney, or being forced to torpedo a lingering Ron Paul or Rick Santorum. If I were in an early state, I’d probably pick Rick Perry under the Buckley Rule.
Bonus point: If Newt does win the Presidency, I wonder what fate awaits Newt’s former staffers who sand-bagged him to go over to Perry?
Answer – They will be fed feet first through the wood chipper, slowly…
I’m for Romney.
I’m against Obama. In that regard, anyone short of Ron Paul will do. People need to get their eyes back on the ball.
I think the debates are a ridiculous show. I certainly don’t want the fundamentalism of several candidates in my presidential candidate. Some don’t seem to realize that their values are not shared by all in their party. Some of us don’t like the idea that a small state in the midwest gets to be first in choosing a presidential nominee. Either hold these contests all on the same day, at times that are comparable for all states or stop having primaries and go back to the smoke-filled rooms.
Agree with Donna completely. Rotating primaries are my personal preference. A national primary favors the media over retail politicking and big media markets over small ones.
Having delegates selected at party conventions by county delegates isn’t a bad idea, but it requires sustained engagement in the local party apparatus by movements like the tea parties– something which I don’t think can be sustained over time. The GOP primary system is pretty good overall, except for the fixed state order.
The argument used to be that when there’s a sustained national contest that the later primary states become disproportionately powerful. 2008 put paid to that theory forever. On the democrat side, there were explicit arguments to cut the primary short through deal-making lest their national campaign be delayed.