« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

The Not-Romney’s should not Skip the Super Tuesday Debate on CNN

I am a little behind on this news, but since it is, still an interesting topic I am going to cover it regardless. I am talking about the news that the March 1stCNN debate has been canceled because Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, and Rick Santorum all pulled out.

It is easy to start to feel exhausted from the contentiousness of these debates, with the same argument between the same candidates. Nothing major has happened in the debates that have altered the race since Romney won Florida. It helps that there has not been any debates since then, and that is why this debate out of all of them, should not have been canceled.

The race has completely changed since the Florida debate. Romney was swept when he started losing states he won in 2008 handedly. Santorum is now threatening to win Michigan, by most accounts now a must win state for Romney. Ron Paul has not won any states yet, and he is suspected of making strategic deals with Romney (which by the way has to leave his supporters perturbed because of those Zionist taking over the world thing). Newt Gingrich is flailing right now, and since the debates have been his lifeblood, this harms him the most.

I have little doubt why this debate was not something team Romney wanted to do. They started planting the seeds long before the news broke after Gingrich won South Carolina. This would have been the last debate before Super Tuesday, and team Romney could not afford a resurgent Gingrich or a strengthened Santorum to come out of this debate. Romney has tended to shoot himself in the foot when on the debate stage ($ 10,000 bets and not hiring illegals because he “I’m running for office, for Pete’s sake”) and at this point in the game, he cannot afford a huge gaffe.

What I do not understand is why Santorum and Paul dropped out. I suspect Paul has some silly reason that involves him getting his favored speaking position at the convention, but Santorum could have really done Romney some harm by debating Gingrich right before Super Tuesday. Yes, this would have given Gingrich a chance to regain some of the lost momentum, but in likelihood, they could have turned the whole debate into a referendum on why Romney is too weak of a candidate to face President Obama.

Gingrich is already attempting to use this to his advantage “The Romney model is go to Wall Street and raise huge amounts of money to run negative ads, and you can understand why having to defend that strategy is probably not something he’s very happy about.”

This would have been a much stronger argument coming from the candidates that did not skip the debate. My guess is if Santorum had stayed in, then Romney would have felt the pressure to go to the debate and decided to go. The Romney is weak argument is a particular powerful one after McCain attempted being civil in 2008, and Romney is already trying to convince people he is the outsider with the strength to go toe to toe with the Chicago machine. Not having been elected to a Washington governmental office does not really mean that you are a non-establishment candidate. Skipping this debate shows a weakness Romney should want to hide.

This seems like a wasted opportunity for the non-Romney in this race, one that could have been further harmed Romney’s already precarious situation.

 

COMMENTS

  • jimmyneutron

    a few days ago! It really made me upset. Politics as usual. That is why I have such a hard time trusting Santorum. I like the debates, especially if they are moderated well, because they force the candidates to explain what they will do to confront real issues such as the debt, etc. Now I see that the front runners are going to try to sit on their laurels and run not to loose. So they have lost already.

    This election is not about counting delegates, not this time! There are simply too many of us out here who understand the breadth and depth of our problems and will not settle for business as usual politics anymore. If we are going to go down then lets go down swinging. Tell the American people what the problems are and what we need to do to fix them. If the majority of American’s don’t want to hear or deal with the truth yet, then letthem suffer until they do. Our party needs to present a Bold, truthful alternative to the statist, liberal, socialistic bs they hear from the other side. When i see stuff like this it appears to me that the Boehner wing of the party is taking over the presidential primary.

  • Finrod

    We already know Mitt Romney is a lying suckweasel, and Ron Paul is insane, so this all comes down to Rick.

  • APA Guy

    I see two candidates who are basically sitting on the ball…trying to run out the clock. That sort of mentality will get you whipped against someone like Barack Obama.

    As it is, Newt should debate empty chairs…and have Fox News (since CNN is still likely miffed at him for beating down John King) moderate the debate.

  • http://www.timothy-bladel.com/ center77

    I really think beating Obama is vital, as most of the conservatives do. I am sure we are down to no candidate that can beat him. If this Santorum stuff keeps going on about his views on women, then once again we are going to have Romney be the most electable; which is not saying much! I would like to see Gingrich come back, if not for his baggage, he would have been an ideal candidate with his political instincts.

  • trickamsterdam

    1. Newt called on Santorum to drop out. Therefore Santorum owes him nothing.

    2. Newt said he’d have “great trouble” voting for Paul over Obama. Therefore Paul owes him nothing.

    3. Romney does owe him something, by lying and going hard negative on him after what had been a mostly positive campaign season up until that point…but Romney is Romney.

    4. The subject of the debate, pounded endlessly by the MSM moderator would be “birth control”. While this hurts Santorum the most it actually hurts all the GOP.

    5. Let Erick Erickson and Bill Bennet (both have CNN connections) moderate it, and you’d have more of a point. But at this point even Paul the Attention Whore isn’t going. Whatever he is, he’s no coward. After this many debates it makes more sense to spend the time campaigning (except for Newt who’s behind)

    6. I think there’s another one coming up in a week or whatever, isn’t there? We need two in two weeks, to go along w/ the ten or whatever we’ve already had?

    7. Romney beat Newt in the two FL debates (IMO), by getting him back on his heels. Many feel Santorum won some of the SC and FL debates (I find his style over aggressive, but those were the reviews). And Paul is Paul, fearlessly speaking his mind on the issues. While Newt is a better debater than them, it’s very marginal.

    So I’d say it had more to do w/ strategy than “cowardice”. At least that would be the logical interpretation.

  • APA Guy

    And as for your assertion that the candidates don’t “owe” Newt anything regarding debating, that’s true. But what about what they owe US, the voting electorate?

    If “strategy” is what we gently coin running like a scared chicken from a debate in Newt’s backyard, then pencil Obama in for a 2nd term right now. If they can’t beat Newt on his own turf, they will get demolished when Obama gets them on his three times before November.

  • WillWong

    On the back of his debate performances, Newt rose from the dead back in May 2011 when his entire senior staff left to top tier by November 2011 until he was brought down by millions of dollars of unanswered negative and patently false ads!

    According to pollster Frank Luntz, Newt was the first ever standing ovation in a presidential debate he had seen and Newt followed that with two more the following week.

    Newt may have made a tactical error trying for a draw in Florida. Romney on the other hand was in a must win situation and hired a very good debate coach for the Florida debates.

    Romney decision to cut back on debates was premeditated because after Florida, he fired the debate coach.

    Like Newt said on his blog, voters should ask all three guys why is it that they should get their votes when they cannot even bother to show up for a debate in their State. I think Georgia is in the bag for Newt!

  • http://www.timothy-bladel.com/ center77

    and if I am correct, when Team Perry talked about taking a debate off, both Team Santorum and Team Romney called him weak.

    Now all the sudden when it is to their benefit to skip the debate right before almost 500 delegates are chosen, it is suddenly ok.

    No way, I think we hold their feet to the fire the same way they held Perry’s to the fire. This is not kick ball or whatever you want to call it. I agree, it is strategic, but their strategy not to take a risk on having Newt win and gain momentum. Like I said, Perry used the same reasoning for wanting to skip a debate, and everyone said it showed weakness. I see no reason there should be a double standard here.

  • David123

    If the moderators are setting up the candidates for negative soundbites by Obama, then why shouldn’t the candidates avoid the debates? First Stephanopoulos asks that bizarre question about Griswold and then Obama makes free birth control pills mandatory – quite a coincidence.

    We need somebody like Rush Limbaugh as a debate moderator

  • trickamsterdam

    I know I’ve gotten five or six on one of thread, and three or four on another.

    Since that’s what I use to figure out if anyone’s responded, if I don’t, it doesn’t mean I’m ignoring you or “am frightened” (as Santorum is, supposedly, in not debating Newt). It just means I’m seeing zeros (same as Newt’s delegate count in AZ and MI).

    ***

    @WillWong: Saying Newt is “far better” is just emotionalism.. If he were that much better he would have won the two that mattered most (FL).

    Some point to Santorum’s take-down of Romney on RomneyCare as a turning point for both him and Romney (Romney: “It’s nothing to get angry about!”) in those debates also.

    Santorum’s style has always been too aggressive for me, but part of that may have been that he was going after candidates or issues I liked (e.g. Perry, Newt, non-interventionism).

    The fact is many felt he was winning many of these debates on the substance. These were the reviews that he got from many sources.

    Newt would go on the attack (in the GA debate), and doesn’t care that the MSM moderator will spend the whole debate on birth control. If you want Obama defeated, you, unlike Newt, should care about that.

    ***

    @APA Guy:

    “And as for your assertion that the candidates don

  • trickamsterdam

    I meant that I had included responses for them in the previous post, but wanted to announce the info that the board wasn’t telling me when I get responses, first, so people know I’m not dodging them..

  • WillWong

    Unless you have some breakout grand slam performances like Newt with Juan Williams and Newt and John King, most other debates can be quite subjective. In Florida, I don’t think Newt lost! People think thst Newt lost because he failed to land another grand slam.

    Imho, Newt was trying not to lose in Florida and that was a tactical error.

    That said, the main point that I tried to make was that through a series of fine debate performances, Newt brought his campaign from tne dead twice and a third time is coming. Nothing emotional about this!

  • acat

    Neil confirming it, but .. it’s happened off and on since the last upgrade.

    Mew

  • http://www.timothy-bladel.com/ center77

    and that is why it is important to get this out of the way, and that is why they are afraid of letting Newt debate.