« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Debate recap: And then there were 3

Ron Paul’s campaign self-destructed tonight.  The way to trip up Ron Paul is to always bring up foreign policy and then he goes off the hinge.  He may have a loyal following but they will be very hard-pressed to persuade anyone to come over to them.  He’ll start falling in the Iowa polls within a week.

Rick Perry given the somewhat shortened time he had tonight, was very, very good.  As a Perry supporter I was very pleased.  Bringing in Tim Tebow was a nice touch.  His answers regarding Fast and Furious, limiting government and judicial intrusion, border security, even classy deference to his opponents in the end.  Each debate he has become better.  Probably the most revealing thing I see is just how much the Fox News’ analysts venom they have toward him.  Why in the world do they have Democrats critiquing Republicans? Pat Caddell hates candidates that remind him too much of Reagan’s conservatism.  He is also very anxious as well as the rest on the panel to bury his candidacy.

Newt Gingrich was really put through the wringer tonight and I thought survived it well.  If Gingrich didn’t have all the personal baggage he has, he would be running away with the nomination.  As always, he gives very well thought out and detailed answers.  I also thought he handled Bachmann’s attacks very well.   However, he took a beating on Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.

Mitt Romney had a good performance as well.  He got hammered by Chris Wallace on his flip-flopping and some responses weren’t so impressive.  His response on the GM bailout sounded like a defacto endorsement of the bailout.  His answer regarding his experience in the private sector and creating jobs I thought was his best moment of the night.

Bachmann and Santorum had good performances but their lack of executive experience will probably keep them out of consideration.  It’s one and done for both of their campaigns.  They have invested everything in Iowa.  I don’t see anything that tells me their campaigns will last beyond New Hampshire.

The Fox News panel stating that this was such a great performance of Newt is true, though I don’t believe it will reverse his downward momentum.  The personal and political baggage of his past is hurting his campaign a lot.  The lack of infrastructure in Iowa and a lack of presence from Gingrich (he won’t be back until the 28th) tells me that Gingrich will not win Iowa.   There is a huge swath of conservative voters that are still undecided in Iowa.  I can envision a late break for the Iowa winner the weekend prior to January 3rd.

Just my take everyone.  You don’t have to agree with it :)   The race is down to Perry, Gingrich and Romney.  It’s going to be fun until January 3rd.

COMMENTS

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    nor was Santorum or Huntsman. Bachmann did not come off well at all. I predict she will drop even further.

    You are correct in your assessment of the others. Except I don’t think Perry did anything special, he mostly won by not being the other guys.

    • axistogrind

      Perry didn’t have enough air time to do anything amazing tonight, but what he did do tonight was make it very possible for evangelicals in that state to feel comfortable with him again. He has gotten so much better at this, and he has the best credentials as an executive on the stage. He is from central casting of the guy evangelicals like to vote for. The others who do well with that 60% of the electorate are not viable. Eventually, being a protest vote for Santorum or even Bachmann is not the desire of most voters. I would postulate that he will take some of their votes, and I also think that he will take some of paul’s soft supporters after his embarrassingly unrealistic foreign policy argument tonight. Nothing spectacular was done tonight, but he is going out on a bus tour, and I think it is pretty well documented that he wows people on the campaign trail. I think what he did tonight was open the door with Iowa voters who doubted his viability. I would be shocked if he doesn’t pick up some ground in Iowa.

  • Flagstaff

    wins Iowa. But that’s today.

    And it might be to everyone’s advantage if he does.

    • dcacklam

      Since winning IA will make it more likely that Paul will run 3rd-party after he looses the nomination….

      • Flagstaff

        isn’t good, is it?

  • Flagstaff

    I disagree with the folks who thought Gingrich didn’t handle the F & F questions well. The tempest has been framed in a way that leaves us having to decide who to believe, Newt or Michell B. I find Newt’s flat out denial of lobbying to be much more believable than her accusations, absent any corroboration from her. It’s sort of like the way she attacked Perry about the Gardisil tempest–plenty of spin, some of it contrary to fact–and not much substance.

    He was paid by F & F–so what? Did he do the work he was paid for? I haven’t heard her accuse him of taking money for nothing.

    • center77

      he said he worked one hour a month, that comes out to be about 30,000 an hour, and that is NBA money, not advice money, Newt can get up and lie all he wants, but only those hwo are inclined to support him do not use their brain and think he did not lobby. The logical thing to think is he did indeed lobby. and that is the only way to explain the money they paid him. Do you really think they paid him, Newt Gingrich, of all people, to give them historic advice on what to do, and then not act on that advice. The one reason he is getting away with this lie is because people want him to not have been a lobbyist, but he was, its the only thing that makes any sense.

      • Flagstaff

        but exactly who did he talk to that was worth that much money? In fact, what would have been worth that amount?

        So the fact that it was a lot of money proves nothing except that it was a lot of money and he may have been overpaid. If he was lobbying for anybody without registering, you can bet there would have been charges brought long ago.

        As for me, I don’t care if he was lobbying by your definition or not. What I do care about is that it needs to be cleared up, and obviously for you and others it hasn’t. And I also care that MB sounds like someone I don’t want to know and don’t want for President. Instead of arguing back and forth, I’d rather have her publish some proof that what she says is true. After all, she’s accusing him of breaking the law. If she can make it stick, then guess who gets the nomination.

        Rush commented toady that it’s a four-person race (does not include Ron Paul). I discount MB from that group, so eliminate Newt, then Perry and Romney will fight it out.

  • http://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com nathanalbright

    ….a link to the whole debate online so I can watch it?

    • gekster

      Will post when I get it.
      Check back to this comment, I’ll post it here.

      • http://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com nathanalbright

        ….and all I can find are the highlights.

        • Flagstaff

          I could burn a DVD for you. It’d would probably be old news before you got it thought.

          Contact me if you want it.

  • http://www.changeforrickperry.org louisianapatriette

    I went into the debate liking some things about Ron Paul (namely, his economic views). Last week I got really angry at him for his comments about the government and 9/11, but they didn’t surprise me that much. But last night he completely lost me. In my opinion, his horrible foreign policy far outweighed his fiscal policies last night. To watch him get so snappy with Michele Bachmann and then start hollering like a maniac was disappointing, to say the least. I would never have expected him to act so childish. I wish now that I could’ve changed my Townhall/HotAir ballot. I had him as my (distant) 2nd choice. If I could go back, I would throw him out the window and put Michele Bachmann there instead.

    Michele Bachmann, in my opinion, did really well. Except for her “I’m a serious contender” comment, she was articulate and sharp in her attacks of Newt and Paul. You could tell they were both pretty angry with her by the end of the evening.

    Perry got far less time than he should have. Huntsman is polling at what, 2%, and he got twice as much time as Perry. But no matter–when Perry was given a question, his answers were home runs, out of the ballpark. His Tebow comment was pitch-perfect and won hearts, I have no doubt. I was delighted that he got the Fast and Furious question. Also his answers for favorite Supreme Court Justices–Alito and Thomas–were spot-on. I just wish he had mentioned Sotomayor so he could pronounce it in his fluent Spanish :D

    My thoughts this morning, after I’ve had time to sleep on it, are in agreement with yours. Gingrich, Perry, and Romney are the only true contenders. But Gingrich is leaking support and Romney…well, you know Romney, nobody likes him but Ann Coulter and Nikki Haley. I’m looking forward to seeing Secretariat–er, I mean Perry–shoot ahead after Christmas.