The last Republican debate before Iowa: Did Bachmann just save Romney?

Slate ^ | December 16, 2011 | John Dickerson

[americanophile]

There have been so many debates during the Republican preseason that it was hard to believe the one hosted by Fox News in Sioux City, Iowa, was the last one before the voting begins. Ratings have been strong, and commentary has been endless: You can imagine a network trying to squeeze in just one more--are you free on Christmas Eve, Governor?

It has been a thrilling debate run: Pawlenty crashed; Perry blanked; Romney confronted Perry; Gingrich shined; 9-9-9; Perry blanked. But the Sioux City debate was not an epic contest. It was like the primary race itself: no dominant figure but with something for Republicans to like in each of the candidates. In a recent New York Times/CBS poll, 66 percent of Iowans said they are still undecided about their final choice. This debate didn't make their job any easier for them.

But Iowans must choose, so in that spirit: The winner of the evening was Mitt Romney. His performance was solid and his defense of his flip-flops was better than his chief rival Newt Gingrich's explanation about his work for Freddie Mac. Most importantly, all the other candidates were effective, and Romney benefits more than Gingrich from a broad strong field that splits the vote.

Romney regained the form he showed in the early debates, commanding and at ease. Romney made fun of mistakes he made in the private sector (He thought Jet Blue wouldn't work), and he talked about how he learned from his errors. Maybe it's a good thing Gingrich has challenged him. He picked up his game.

Gingrich acquitted himself well, too: He was a pugilist, bashing judges, lawyers, Obama's decision on the Keystone pipeline. And he was even self-deprecating, saying at one point that he was "editing himself" in his...

[Matt Hatter]

She has started coming off as a rather mean, angry person who throws bombs. I try to tune her out, but it is difficult to do. I used to respect her, but I hope no one chooses her as a VP.

[Psalm 144]

The answer is obvious if you rephrase it to ask why a not very astute ultra opportunist would kiss Romney’s party approved butt.

[tentmaker]

My scorecard from last night:

LARGEST GAIN MADE - Rick Perry
Perry avoided any problems, got some good applause at times, and turned in his best debate performance so far. The bad news is while this may push him back into double digits in the polls, he is not likely to go much higher.

BEST DEBATE PERFORMANCE - Newt Gingrich
Newt continued to distance himself from the pack with both substance and style. His understanding of history is masterful. The issue of his consulting for Fannie/Freddie is overblown and will fade.

TREADING WATER - Rick Santorum
Rick may be the steadiest debate performer, but that is because he is consistently unimpressive with his immaturity and lack of understanding his limitations.

NEEDED TO GAIN GROUND BUT DIDN’T - Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman
Mitt turned in his normal, smooth talking sales pitch that dooms him to the 20% range in the polls. He needed to dent Gingrich in this debate and did not do that.
Jon is at a lower polling range but had the same problem. He is what he is and nothing changed last night. He’s done.

FINISHED AND SHOULD DROP OUT - Michelle Bachmann and Ron Paul
Michelle’s hair was nice but every time she’s gone on the attack, she loses ground in the polls and this one will be the same. If she can’t do any better in Iowa, she’s done.
Ron shot himself in the foot with foreign policy as usual. Some folks seemed surprised with his remarks last night, but they are not new. He’s been saying the same things for years. He has his cadre, but no chance of winning.

[Yankee]

Funny, I don’t think Wallace likes Romney at all.

I agree with you. Some Freepers see what they want to see.

Some Freepers think they are so clever when they throw around leftist constructs like "Faux" news.

I really love the ones that brag that they don't own a TV, then jump on every live thread to ask that the rest of us report what is being said on TV.

Stick around FR long enough and you'll see everyone we loathe praised and everyone we revere savaged.

[Venturer]

I like Mrs. Bachman for her Conservatism. but she doesn’t apper to me to be very bright, at least not when she stands with people who ARE really bright, like Newt.

I believe Congressperson is the her top level , after that the Peters Principal kicks in.

[Sudetenland]

Yeah, he ripped it apart on the judiciary. I just wish they had given him an opportunity to respond the looney Paul's 10 minute dialogue with Brett Baier on Iran.

True, Bachmann pretty well ripped him to shreds, but I think Gingrich's response would have been far more devastating to the Paul mentality as it would have been based in history and filled with facts.

Oh well, Newt did well in spite of his Fannie/Freddie problem.

I am far more concerned about something Joe Scarborough said this morning. Note, I know Joe hates Newt and will take any opportunity to denigrate him, but I don't believe I have ever heard him actually lie.

What he said is that during the balanced budget debate with Clinton, Newt wanted to abandon the tax cuts and

"were it not for 'purists' [Newt's description of them] like Steve Largent, Matt Sammon, Tom Coburn, JC Watts, myself, Steve Shabbot--there were about 10 or 11 of us--we wouldn't have got there. We pushed him overboard because he was dealing with Dave Obey more than he was dealing with Steve Largent . . .

"I'm sorry, but Newt wanted to back down on tax cuts, what he just the week before called the "Crown Jewel" of the Contract With America and we went to him and said, 'You're not going to get rid of the tax cuts. If you try, we're going to get rid of you."

Starts at about 10:00 in this clip

This is very disturbing and not something I recall or heard about.

[skeeter]

I finally have to admit, Bachmann came across terribly, IMO.

Shrill is the best way to describe her - and I've defended her for months. Gingrich clearly did NOT 'offer to campaign for anyone who suppoerted PBA'.

[Signalman]

believe Congressperson is the her top level , after that the Peters Principal kicks in.

Speaking of the Peter Principle, I think Obama reached his level when he was a community organizer.

[Jukeman]

It appears the media is now trying to resurrect Bachmann hoping she can pull Romney up by pulling Gingrich down. Bachmann flat out annoys the hell out of me. I mean she reminds me, in some strange way, of Giraldo Rivera. That is about as bad as it gets for me.

[Caipirabob]

Romney's biggest problem was that when he woke up this morning, he was still SnippyMcMittCare Romney, the man everyone wants to avoid.

I will never, simplynever vote for a man who signed a nazi healthcare bill into law.

In short, FUMR!

[VanDeKoik]

Judging by the absence of her cheerleaders on FR since last night, I think most people now get that she is acting on behalf of Romney.

[C. Edmund Wright]

>> I finally have to admit, Bachmann came across terribly, IMO.
Shrill is the best way to describe her - and I’ve defended her for months. Gingrich clearly did NOT ‘offer to campaign for anyone who suppoerted PBA’.>>

Takes an adult to admit that on the forum, and I appreciate it. This is what has put me off on MB from the get go. Not only did she over play the issue at hand - reality dictates that not everyone we need for key votes will be with us on every single issue up and down the line.

We live in a Republic, and that means it is up to us to win peoples hearts and minds in the arena of ideas and means we CANNOT DEMAND 100% compliance until we do.

None of the problems facing us have to do with anything in the very tiny differences between MB and NG on life issues. Shame on her for trying to drive a wedge where none exists.

[ngat]

“You have to wonder if Bachmann, her candidacy about as moribund as anyone save Romney or Gingrich, is campaigning for a vice presidential spot with Romney. She did take shots at Paul, of course, but her main fire was directed at Gingrich.”

Good observations there. If this long GOP Pre-Primary- debate TV series did any good at all, it would be to identify which candidates could handle the media and come across acceptably on TV and which could not. Those that did not became “moribund.” Would you agree that if the moribund ones all came together now and got behind Newt, there is a chance Newt would ask a true conservative to run as his VP, instead of selecting a ruling-class establishment politician as VP?

[ngat]

Disagree with you totally about Michele’s hair last night.

[bramps]

At first I didn't think the debates, especially so many, would be beneficial to the process. However, I find them to be very informative and illuminating as they continue. At the outset of this process, I was 100% in either Cain's or Bachman’s corner. Cain has been bushwhacked and Bachman has come on as a shrill wicked witch of the west style to me. If she had taken the high road she would have been effective. The best thing that happened was my renewal in the backing of Newt Gingrich. He caught my eye when he was first elected because of his ideas and his manner of debate. I was ecstatic when he ascended to the Speakers position and accomplished more in those 4 years than most congress persons have in 20 to 30 years. His record is a conservative one. Every piece of legislation he was involved with passing was either conservative or was able to be agreed upon by conservatives for the good of the country. I can't stand it when he is accused of being in favor of partial birth abortion and Fannie and Freddie. I am a resident of Mass. and prepare tax returns for a living. Romneycare is not like he makes it sound. He says that the 8% that didn't have coverage are now covered. Wrong. They are not all covered and if they aren't the fine can be as much as $2,000.. If you weren't able to afford the insurance before, how, all of a sudden can you afford to pay the fines to the state??? Romney is effective only in the private sector status. As a President, he will bend whenever he meets resistance. Guaranteed.

[sanjuanbob]

Megyn Kelly made it known on her own show yesterday that she was happy that Gingrich was slipping in the Iowa polls. Did you notice after her attempt to corner Gingrich with her question about the courts last night that Gingrich virtually took her to school, citing four historic case examples. Brett said to her as they were going to break, “valiant effort Megyn” to which she replied, “I tried”. What was that all about?

[Prole]

Chris Wallace is a nasty democrat.

If anyone thinks he prefers Romney or Gingrich, then think again.

Wallace, like the rest of the MSM, is foisting Gingrich onto us because they are going to blow some massive holes into his campaign IF it sustains momentum to fall 2012.

[oldbrowser]

NEEDED TO GAIN GROUND BUT DIDN’T - Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman

Romney may have been a little too subtle for this crowd. When he was attacking Obama for being a career politician with no business or job creating experience, he did not look at anyone on the stage but the implication was there. I also thought Huntsman had some good beg picture visions about the economy and world situations.

As a general rule I favor a governor over a senator or congressman because of their executive experience, but I believe that Newt is the best debater and can whip this group 7 days a week.

[Zevonismymuse]

Stick around FR long enough and you'll see everyone we loathe praised and everyone we revere savaged.

Most of the intellectually honest Freepers have moved on. I remember the good old days when there was no shortage of interesting debate here. Now the site is run by a mob of anti-Mormon Teavangelicals.

[Wallace T.]

Newt just might consider a true conservative. Clinton and Bush II broke the mold of having VPs from another political viewpoint and region of the country, yet were elected twice. The GOP's remaining moderates bring no electoral strength, as they mostly represent strongly blue states. He also has to shore up his strength with Christian conservatives. Additionally, Gingrich, who will be 69 next year, needs a younger person as his VP. He looks like the liberal stereotype of a conservative Republican.

Santorum is a name that comes to mind; he may also bring his home state of Pennsylvania into the GOP column for the first time in over 20 years. Having two Pennsylvanians (Gingrich by birth, Santorum by long residency), both Catholic (Gingrich a convert; Santorum a cradle Catholic) may be unusual, but this is not unprecedented, e.g, Clinton/Gore, both Southerners and Baptists. Perry is another possibility, but his gaffes probably preclude him for consideration. Additionally, Texas is the "reddest" of the large states, and even Huntsman could carry it. Perry would not add any strength to a Republican ticket led by Newt.