Blunt Mitt Romney-surrogate, Chris Christie, grades last night's debate.
"I don't think there was last night a clear knockout winner. I think that some people -- I think Senator Santorum had an awful night.
And he gave an example last night [of] why we don't need another legislator in the White House.... 'I'm a team player. It's against my principle, but I voted for it'. This is why you don't want somebody who's inside the beltway that long."
Christie was referring to Santorum's disastrous explanation of his past support for No Child Left Behind.
Santorum, last night.
“I voted for that. It was against the principles I believed in, but when you’re part of the team, sometimes you take one for the team for the leader. And I made a mistake.”
With a quiet but real explosion on Morning Joe today, Jon Huntsman made the case for a third party and despite his endorsement of Mitt Romney, vowed that he's "nobody's surrogate."
"I think we're going to have problems politically until we get some sort of third party movement or some alternative voice out there that can put forward new ideas."
He then anticipated speculation that he'd lead the effort.
"That ain't gonna be me, by the way, I know the next question. I'm not interested in that."
Later, John Heilemann asked if that meant he would prefer a third party candidate to Mitt Romney, whom Huntsman' has endorsed.
Huntsman answered:
"I'm not a surrogate for anybody. You've got someone coming up who's a surrogate. [Chris Christie]"
Woah!
Everyone knew Huntsman wasn't fond of Romney, but this is a remarkable lack of faith in someone he's ostensibly supporting.
[Santorum] took a lot of attacks from Romney and a few from Paul, and he noticed that Paul and Romney didn't seem to go after each other. When it was all over, and Santorum met reporters, he didn't try to hide what he was thinking.
"You have to ask Congressman Paul and Gov. Romney what they've got going together," Santorum said. "Their commercials look a lot alike, and so do their attacks."
"They've got something going on?" a reporter asked Santorum.
"You tell me," Santorum said.
Santorum's aides have long suspected that Romney and Paul have some sort of deal by which they attack other candidates but not each other. "Clearly there is a tag-team strategy between Ron Paul and Mitt Romney," top Santorum strategist John Brabender told reporters after the debate.
Earlier this month, The Washington Post's Amy Gardner wrote about the Romney-Paul relationship.
Despite deep differences on a range of issues, Romney and Paul became friends in 2008, the last time both ran for president.
So did their wives, Ann Romney and Carol Paul. The former Massachusetts governor compliments the Texas congressman during debates, praising Paul’s religious faith during the last one, in Jacksonville, Fla. Immediately afterward, as is often the case, the Pauls and the Romneys gravitated toward one another to say hello.
.... It is a strategic partnership: for Paul, an opportunity to gain a seat at the table if his long-shot bid for the presidency fails; for Romney, a chance to gain support from one of the most vibrant subgroups within the Republican Party.
.... But there is also a growing recognition that the congressman plans to stay in the contest over the long term — and that accommodating him and his supporters could help unify Republican voters in the general election against President Obama.
“Ron Paul wants a presence at the convention,” the adviser said — and Romney, if he is the nominee, would grant it.
Indeed, that's generally what you hear. That the alliance is built on a fairly warm personal relationship coupled with mutual political ambition. That's an unshakable combination.
Last night’s debate was a two hour affair and final tussle of the season, which made it somewhat like Downtown Abbey, which also had its season finale this week (but unlike Abbey, the debate didn’t have Matthew Crawley running relays after blowing out his spine, Lady Mary marking her transformation from Cruella DeVil to patron saint of rabbit-giving, and Daisy, leaving Downton to embark on a personal quest to tell every human alive that she didn’t actually love that footman who looked like Launchpad from Duck Tales. And oh, memo to producers: you don’t have to threaten every character with public hanging to keep us interested. Small things count. Pregnant pauses and such. And by “pregnant pauses”, I don’t mean two pauses had an illicit affair and one of them ended up pregnant. Please, just stop).
If you watch Downtown, you know what I mean. If you don’t, I’ve completely confused you, and let’s get to the scorecard.
MITT ROMNEY: A-
He gets a good grade, not because he was particularly great, but because he did what he had to do – beat Santorum and reestablish himself as the disciplined front-runner.
So from the context of accomplishing something important, he wins the whole thing. It wasn’t terribly pretty, and as with all things Romney this cycle, it was like Ike without the disarming smile and cigarettes – Mitt doesn’t pursue fancy strategies; he just amasses an army with superior force and sends it straight into the enemy’s front-lines and trusts that 10,000 troops are enough to overcome 4,000.
Or, to put it another way, Romney has taken the attitude of General Thomas Power during the Cold War, who said that if there were “two Americans and one Russian” left alive at the war’s end, “we win!”
In Boston, I think that’s the Romney team’s philosophy, and it’s Barack Obama’s ethos, too, which is why this could be a grand general election. Will it be Two Romneys and One Obama left, or Two Obamas and One Romney left?
Inspiring.
Anyway, one of the biggest moments in the debate also descended into one of the more inscrutable, but before it did, Romney clearly got the better of Santorum. Earmarks were the topic, and Mitt rebuked them (always the smart thing, politically) with a forceful “I would put a ban on earmarks”, while Santorum talked about the V-22 Osprey in an anecdote that went on way too long.
This is something Mitt is much better at than Rick – being short, resolute (as Mitt described himself -- you know I’m going to use the word about a million times), and focused with his riffs. Santorum can be lured off-track with his. Sometimes, like when he talks about freedom of religion, they sound like Jimi Hendrix. Other times, they’re like your neighbor with the cheap guitar, loud amp, and stranglehold on your Saturday morning.
Rick wasn’t offered much time in most of the previous debates, so we didn’t know how unfocused he could be in them. Romney took advantage of that, and after Santorum attacked him for requesting earmarks for the Olympics, Mitt pounced.
“While I was fighting to save the Olympics, you were fighting to save the Bridge to Nowhere.”
Ouch. Well-played, Mitt.
But Romney is saddled with this significant problem – he’s still not very likable. He can be very good at debates, but Barack Obama beats him on smiles. Sure, both are testy, but Romney’s isn’t counterbalanced by warmth or authentic smoothness.
Then there was a moment where he clapped in satire that played awful on TV, and his refusal to answer John King’s question about the biggest misconception (a perfectly fine question) came across as arrogant rather than strong. There’s a fine line between those two, but it means everything.
Mitt’s continual attacks on Santorum for voting to raise the debt ceiling are transparent and well-mocked, considering most of his surrogates during those years also voted to raise it, and we all pretty much know Romney would have, as well.
It’s like Columbus jabbing Neil Armstrong for going to the moon when everyone knows that Columbus would’ve gone if he had a chance. That’s Mitt on the debt ceiling. Further, he was almost completely absent during last year’s debt ceiling debate, and for transparently political reasons.
Final comment on Romney.
Ever since he got thrashed by Newt in the South Carolina debates, he’s packed audiences with his supporters so they can clap for him and try to trick you into thinking Romney was unbelievably inspiring.
It’s so obvious and so Romney on so many different levels. How do you know the applause is about his candidacy; not what he says? Because when he says something that’s not remotely interesting, the audience acts like they’ve just witnessed a Josh Groban and Andrea Bocelli duet, while Victoria’s Secret angels proceed forth during “You raise me up.”
When Newt gets standing ovations, it’s not because he packed the hall with his supporters, but because he turned a packed hall into his supporters with something amazing he said.
Romney just does it by brute force and superior organization. Again, like that fictional battle leaving two Americans and one Soviet left.
RICK SANTORUM: C
Out of context, it wasn’t horrible, but considering he needed to halt a palpable fade in Michigan polls, he completely failed.
The best news for him was that his worst moment was near the end, but it’s going to still haunt him. When talking about No Child Left Behind, he said:
“I voted for that. It was against the principles I believed in, but when you’re part of the team, sometimes you take one for the team for the leader. And I made a mistake.”
Devastatingly bad.
Not because he admitted to being wrong, but because he said he knew it was wrong, but voted for it anyway. And why? Because that’s what all the other Republicans were doing!
That’s exactly the mindset that so infuriates the tea party, and an anecdote that sums up the Bush years.
And that phrase “It was against the principles I believed in” was unbelievable. Candid, yes, but politically horrendous.
Here’s an analogy. Let’s say you’re driving, and you hit and run over a hipster, killing him. Usually, you’d get off with manslaughter, but if you said “I hit him. It was against the principles I believed in, but his messenger bag with the iSuck inside it infuriated me, so I hit him.” That one sentence is the difference between manslaughter and murder.
HUGE difference, and this was a murder moment for Santorum.
That being said, he did have some fine moments, especially when he once again explained his views on birth control and what they would and wouldn’t mean.
“Just because I’m talking about it doesn’t mean I want a government program to fix it. That’s what they (liberals) do.”
Excellent line. Short, punchy, but with appropriate nuance.
But again, too often he descended into V-22 Osprey moments, and the pro-Romney audience clearly flustered him, and made him start speaking louder. Speaking louder seldom works. If it did, the Aflac Duck would be president and well on his way to a third term.
NEWT GINGRICH: A
He had the best debate.
Relaxed, warm, interesting, talking but not posturing.
Why? I only have one explanation, and here it is.
That's all I've got.
But seriously, he had a good moment, calling out the media for not calling out Obama on infanticide, and he did it without posturing, but merely by chatting and not pretending he’d solved Alzheimer’s with a new electric car, in the process.
In general, he was like that the entire night. He took a wedge question about women in the military, and completely remade it in a way that made it look less a gender issue and more a commentary on modern warfare.
Will it matter? Who knows. A 3% bump in Michigan could split the conservative vote enough that it throws the state to Romney. After all, we’ve seen how close these primaries have been.
But I think GOP voters are a bit more savvy than to bite at a good Newt debate again.
There will be only three general election debates, and Newt is so erratic that two of them could be awful when even one would be fatal.
RON PAUL: B-
When asked to describe himself in one word, he said “consistency”, and most, including myself, believe him. No one is more consistent from debate-to-debate, which is why there’s never a ton to write about.
But once again, he left Mitt untouched and called Santorum a “fake” to his face and, thus, proved useful to Romney. Even when tea partiers disagree with Paul, they respect him and his opinion on fiscal matters.
For all that, though, he's still like a misguided missile he wouldn’t even want to pay for on Iran, and his claims of electability are still insufferable.
When talking about the biggest misconception surrounding himself, he said “the perpetuation of the myth by the media that I can’t win.”
Well, that's because he hasn’t won. He couldn’t even win Maine – a state where turnout was so small that one church van could pretty much provide all the transportation for voters.
No, I think the only thing Paul can win is a money bomb, and isn’t it ironic that his greatest strength is in raising dollars; not gold, with a bomb?
Rick Santorum sarcastically thanked Mitt Romney for proposing a tax program similar to his.
"Welcome to the party, governor. It's great to have you along," Santorum said at a campaign event in Tucson, Ariz., on Wednesday.
Santorum's comments came a few hours after Romney released his tax plan, which would cut the top tax rate from 35 percent to 28 percent and cut the bottom tax rate from 10 percent to 8 percent.
Likewise, Santorum's plan cuts the top tax rate to 28 percent and installs a 10 percent bracket.
Everyone (voters, politicians, media etc.,) says Mitt Romney has a passion gap.
I don't think that's true. He has a trustgap, which makes people doubt his passion.
For example, if you watch a Romney speech in total isolation from his flip-flopping record, he seems like a pretty passionate guy with a forceful vision of American exceptionalism and compelling rhetoric about this country's alleged descent into a European socialist state.
But people aren't leery about his platform, they're worried about whether he actually believes his own platform.
That's why I don't think his new tax plan is going to matter too much. A new tax plan doesn't make his flip-flops go away. It doesn't magically melt cap-and-trade.
Instead, it just seems another politically expedient move.
Think about it this way.
For weeks, conservatives have said Romney needs something bold and conservative to close the deal with cons, so what does he do?
He comes out with a plan conservatives really like. In other words, he does the thing that makes political sense. You know, the thing he's been doing his whole career.
Remember, just a few months ago, he was a veritable Tom Tancredo on immigration, and no one believed him. But he was doing it to position himself to the Right of Perry and Gingrich. Once he got to Florida and its large Latino population, he started moving to the middle on immigration again.
Why should the new tax plan be any less transparent a political move? Why would he be more likely to stick to it than all the other things he's discarded or adopted at politically convenient moments?
No, this isn't a passion gap. He talks plenty loud and passionately in his speeches and debates.
Rick Perry will campaign with Newt Gingrich and attend the GOP debate in Arizona on Wednesday, according to reports.
.... Perry’s appearance with Gingrich in Arizona is his first major campaign event for the former House speaker, but he has made fundraising calls on Gingrich’s behalf from Texas.
Arizona is probably a good place to deploy Perry, although he was famously opposed to the state's controversial immigration law.
Nevertheless, he's a western governor with serious tea party cred in a state that has serious Dan Majerle tea party roots.
Ross Douthat on both the agony and ecstasy of Rick Santorum's bid.
the former senator has the instincts of an activist, rather than of a president or statesman.
Whether the topic is social issues or foreign policy, his zeal exceeds his prudence, and as a result his career is littered with debating society provocations.
My less sophisticated way of putting it -- yesterday, it was revealed that Santorum had fighting pornography as a key point in his presidential platform. That's something an activist would talk about; not necessarily a statesman or president.
Hi! This is Ann Romney calling for Romney for President. On behalf of my husband Mitt, I wanted to have a chance to personally ask you for your vote before the Michigan Republican primary.
Michigan is home for Mitt and me. It's where we were raised, it's where we met and it's where many of our family still live today. Because of that, your support would mean a lot to Mitt, to me and to our whole family. With your help, I'm certain that Mitt can defeat Barack Obama this fall, and we can put a man in the White House who cares deeply about Michigan.
Donald Trump is also making calls in Michigan. To the best of my knowledge, neither Al Michaels nor Ed Hochuli are.
Commentary's Peter Wehner talks about the mysterious, ostensibly nefarious "establishment" and is mostly right on -- especially this.
There’s an important role for the establishment in American politics. For one thing, it’s comprised of people who have substantive mastery over issues. Think of the difference between, say, Christine O’Donnell and Herman Cain, who embodied an anti-establishment style but who were not fluent on policy, and Representative Paul Ryan, who qualifies as part of the establishment under any meaningful definition of the term. (Ryan worked at a Washington, D.C. think tank and as a staffer on Capitol Hill in the 1990s, he was elected to Congress in 1998, he’s now chairman of an important committee and is undeniably a part of the governing elite.) The establishment, at its best, provides experience and guidance, a stabilizing presence and a practical (rather than a rigidly ideological) outlook, all of which should appeal to conservatives.
If that's too many words for you, here's another way putting it.
Not-establishment.
Establishment.
Obviously, not every outsider is Christine O'Donnell, and not every member of the establishment is Paul Ryan, but too often inexperience is viewed as indispensable.
Donald Trump will appear on a robocall for the Mitt Romney campaign, blasting Rick Santorum as a "career politician" who has only ever worked for the government or as a lobbyist.
"This is Donald Trump and I have to tell you that I'm tired of Rick Santorum pretending he's some kind of D.C. outsider," the realty television show host says. "Rick Santorum is a career politician that's never had a job in the private sector — he doesn't know about producing jobs."
The call will go out to Michigan voters in the days before Tuesday's pivotal primary.
Trump goes on to hit Santorum for his loss in his race to defend his U.S. Senate seat, and for working as a lobbyist before and after his time in Congress.
"Needless to say, Rick Santorum is deeply entrenched in the Washington culture and has been for decades," Trump says.
Michele Bachmann might not be running for president, but she's still clearly in the market for national donations.
"There is no bigger burr under the saddle of President Obama. I can't imagine there's any other member he'd like to see less in the House of Representatives than myself."
I've long-contended that Jeb Bush is vastly overrated as a party unifier, and now Quinnipiac helpfully confirms that.
In a new poll of a fantasy GOP race, he's dead last with tea partiers. Even Mitch Daniels, who's hardly well-known, beats him, and Chris Christie and Sarah Palin double him.
Tea party support:
1. Sarah Palin and Chris Christie 30%
3. Mitch Daniels 17%
4. Jeb Bush 15%
Non-Tea party support:
1. Chris Christie 33%
2. Jeb Bush 23%
3. Sarah Palin and Mitch Daniels 15%
Overall support:
1. Chris Christie 32%
2. Sarah Palin and Jeb Bush 20%
4. Mitch Daniels 15%
If he ran, Jeb would get bashed for a number of things by tea partiers, but first and foremost, would be his association with the Bushes (close, I hear).
Last year, Laura Ingraham said "there's nothing more establishment than the Bush name. There is absolutely nothing more establishment."
And loads of grassroots conservatives would agree. Every Bush, to them, puts the royal in "blue blood" and is everything that's wrong about the party.
Further, he's far too liberal on immigration for the base's taste (Side note: It'd be sort of funny to see Romney hammer Jeb over immigration, and you know he would -- reportedly, Jeb asked Mitt to tone it down last fall).
And Jeb opposed Arizona's immigration law, explaining thusly in a speech.
Bush said if his children walked the streets of Phoenix they might look awfully suspicious to police. His wife, Columba, is from Mexico.
.... [Bush] quipped that it was obvious he was not running for office, noting that his views differed from those of most of his Republican colleagues
You know Restore Our Future would so go there.
Then there's the fact of Jeb's tone, which hardly fits the nomadic tea party's.
Just after the 2008 Presidential election, he hit certain elements of the party for "chest-pounding", "yelling", and "screaming" on immigration.
“Among Hispanic voters, I think we need to change the tone of the conversation as it relates to immigration.
In Florida, we’ve not participated much in the chest pounding and the yelling and the screaming.
I mean, it just drives me nuts when there are substantive policy differences that we can show mutual respect on, but the tone needs to change."
Soon thereafter, he also urged the party to give up the "nostalgia" for the Reagan years.
In February 2009 (pre-tea party), he prophesied incorrectly, while betraying his fundamental political temperament.
"The tone of the debate reached a point that was very damning to the Republican Party, and the evidence is in. The chest pounders lost.... Politics has to be about ideas and values and aspirations. It shouldn't be about anger and preying on people's emotions.
"You don't have to be a rocket scientist to realize that in order for a political party to be successful it has to reach out to everyone.
In politics, you never win when you say 'us and them'."
Simply put, Jeb was never a fit for the tea party, he never would be, and people who know him surely know he's not interested enough in power to adopt a faux personality.
He might have been able to win the nomination, but he would have never won every wing's heart (as some have claimed he would).
Former Louisiana Gov. Buddy Roemer announces that he's dropping his quixotic* bid for the GOP nomination, and taking up an independent run.
"Tomorrow, I will formally end my bid for the GOP nomination.... as the GOP and the networks host debate number twenty-something this evening, they have once again turned their backs on the demogratic process by choosing to exclude a former Governor and Congressman.
I have decided to take my campaign directly to the American people by declaring my candidacy for Americans Elect.
Also, after many discussions with the with the Reform Party, I am excited to announce my intentions of seeking their nomination."
Both Roemer and former NM Gov. Gary Johnson should've been allowed in the debates (Johnson has also left the party, disgruntled, and is seeking the Libertarian nomination), but neither was a serious contender for the nomination.
*Unwritten rule about writing -- anytime you write a story about Buddy Roemer, you absolutely have to use the word "quixotic" someplace -- as in "the quixotic bid", the "quixotic former governor."
Other unwritten rules for writing about candidates -- Rick Santorum only "surges" or "soars" as befits the "s". When he was peaking, Gingrich was running an "insurgent" campaign, Mitt Romney has been the "putative front-runner" this entire time, and Michele Bachmann got a "fiery" or "feisty".
