1. The debate was annoying. Way too much time on the fake issue of earmarks–with Santorum seeming shrill and defensive and Newt making the statesmanlike point that it’s a fake issue. (I agree with Pete below on the line of questioning being shameful.)
2. In general, Santorum was on the defensive and very short on eloquence. Romney constantly gave the impression of taking the game to him–including going after him on support for Specter etc. and audaciously claiming that that support was the real cause ObamaCare became law. Santorum gave confusing answers on the women-in-combat and contraception questions, and he should have been very ready to handle them. He left it to Newt to explain why the contraception question shouldn’t have been asked and work in Obama’s vote for infanticide as genuine extremism, and to Romney to go off on Obama’s attack on the liberty of religious institutions.
3. Romney generally seemed more commanding and presidential–on the religion/conscience question and on foreign policy etc.
4. Most of all, Santorum didn’t display his strengths or have even one killer answer. He didn’t force Romney out of the pocket, so to speak. His attack on RomneyCare seemed like old news, even if Romney’s defense of it didn’t get any better either. Santorum seemed slightly less than prepared for being center stage in prime time. He didn’t come off as the admirable, overachieving defender of the common Republican man.
5. Because nobody was attacking him, Newt was free to be Newt and so probably actually won the debate on both style and subtance. That doesn’t mean he’s coming back.
6. The debate ended with each candidate being given an opportunity to clear up some misconception about himself. Romney just went into his standard vacuous stump speech. When an objection was raised, his response was you ask the questions you want, I’ll give the answers I want. He could have said something cool like some people don’t think I’m a real conservative, but…
7. My impression is Santorum’s momentum was ebbing a bit over the last couple of days anyway. This debate will probably contribute a bit to his fade. Nothing happened, I think, to increase enthusiasm for Romney, and so the race is still on.
February 22nd, 2012 | 10:30 pm
Terrific point on earmarks. It is a way to sound passionate about cutting spending even as the country goes broke. Santorum should have studlied Obama’s answer from the 2008 debates with McCain. But then again Santorum voted for a new entitlement that wasn’t funded so…
I think that Santorum’s attack on Romneycare was weak because it didn’t include all the many similarities between Obamacare and Romneycare. Also, the moderator wanted to bring it back to more important questions like “So contraception, what up with that?”
February 23rd, 2012 | 8:01 am
You can’t disagree with the two peters, who provided a pincer movement in their analysis of rick santorum last nite. We discussed this before: it’s a different rhetorical situation altogether when you are the center of attention, as distinct from being essentially a commentator. Santorum had his first shot in the former category, and he did not fare well at all. Not unexpected, but bad for him because no new debates are upcoming. He needs to do well on Tuesday, or how can he come back? Will we see Newt arise again from the ashes in that case? And face it, Santorum really did not face tough questions from the moderator, King, who was still suffering from the brush back Newt administered the last time. Santorum never had to respond to his Satan speech.
I am impressed by how much has remained the same in these debates. Romney has been in the hot seat more than any of the others, and he has managed to survive and to best the given ant-Romney of the moment. We have seen his weaknesses, but he has really been the best of the lot. Let’s call him “severely resolute” in his performances. He also always seems to make a little error near or at the end of the debates, as he did again last nite with the stump speech.
February 28th, 2012 | 6:40 pm
I am not convinced anyone takes these debates as seriously as you guys do.
I am not so sure about earmarks, being a non-issue. Again I think somewhere in your political science there is a sort of dark hole when it comes to labor law or an understanding of unions. But this would be a complicated point few folks would take seriously.
Nevertheless I think it is major point Ohio and Michigan are not going to concede. At some point what is shameful is your attack both on unions at the state level and the deficit, and I think perhaps for similar reasons.
If you don’t concede that the United States is monetarily sovereign while the individual states are not, then you can’t possibly understand that public sector labor law at the state level reaches impass where unions are essentially powerless to prevent layoffs. An understanding of the distinction between finance at the state and federal level might in fact be key to understanding our current political situation.
If you are argueing credibly and in good faith that earmarks at the federal level do not matter, then Ohio and Michigan are sure as hell not going to be buying in on this anti-union SB-5 bullshit. Because understand which issues unions bargain about, which ones are permissive, which ones are mandatory, and then understand the power of deficits at the state level for essentially curtailing the negotiating leverage of unions. Unions argue in some sense about “earmarks”.
So a view that earmarks are a non issue at the federal level where deficit spending is permited because the U.S. is monetarily sovereign while Ohio and Michigan are not, doesn’t make sense. A majority of folks in Ohio and Michigan think that the sausage making and leverage of interest groups in washington are greatly increased by the capacity to deficit spend. In fact in a funny way a lot of union folk think that the republican and democratic parties are sort of just labor unions where the representative class is politicians. So a sort of anti-unionism (or the formation of different barganing classes) is at work in the tea party or the occupy movement.
All right Santorum, earmarks are not a problem at the federal level where money is unlimited because the US gov creates it!
Please explain to the republicans at the state level that the meager “earmarks” public sector unions defending teachers (who have to dodge bullets!) are able to get, aren’t really wasteful because states have to ballance budgets!
Look Santorum is getting a lot of support in Michigan and Ohio. I am not going to say that folks are paying attention to the debates, or to attacks on Satan, or the catholic church (which apparently is an interested party in maintaining the earmark of Satan’s metaphysical existence and agency in the world.) The focus of the american people is manifold, but some issues seem to be distractions.
I will say that appart from overplaying religion, Santorum by argueing things in a way I wouldn’t have, is nevertheless tapping into a dynamic that I have noticed.
Some of Romney’s state level endorsements are a liability.
I agree with ceasar when it comes to the difference between being a politician and a commenter (it should go without saying:).
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact