Posted on 02/23/2012 3:19:47 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
[snip]...... Instead of being prepared for obvious attacks on his record (especially with regard to earmarks), [Santorum] made the terrible mistake of trying to explain a complex issue with natural-soundbite negatives to an audience who did not want to hear it. He almost dragged the whole group down, as both Gingrich and Paul attempted to clarify the matter. Romney wisely stayed the course in the role of an indignant foe of the practice. Santorum also sounded like the kind of conservative who wants to deal with government programs he doesn’t like by enacting other government programs. It didn’t play well. He will lose support. The only question is how many people were watching and how far the message will spread.
Newt Gingrich won the debate, hands down. These contests are like air to him. For his purposes, there have been far too few of late. He is the kind of professor who will always be popular with students because he is clear, concise, and great at tracing out an argument. The audience were his students. He delivered the material beautifully. Everything depends on whether GOP voters have finally settled in the belief that he is too damaged for serious consideration. If he rebounds while Santorum falls, it’s happy days for Romney again.
.....Mitt Romney didn’t win on points, but he won in terms of the net (“net-net”?) result. Santorum fell so badly into the trap of looking like a moderate playing conservative that he made the audience forget that they’ve assumed the same thing about the former governor of Massachusetts. Romney wasn’t nearly as exciting as Newt, but he did throw Santorum off his game. And that was just what he needed.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
There are 8 more assessments at the link (we know NRO is in the bag for Mitt so their opinion is telling). Most are very short.
Basically, they acknowledge Newt had a good debate (though the MSM will lament, "Is it too late for Newt?" OR "A bump for Newt will help Mitt!").
"Cheerful" Newt looked and sounded presidential, "Consisitent" Paul looked like Paul, "Courageous" Santorum practically said, I was against it while I was for it, and "Resolute" Mitt looked small next to Newt.
On NRO's frontpage is a poll (w/o Paul)
Who won the AZ Debate? (middle of page)
[snip]
GINGRICH: "But I just want to point out, you did not once in the 2008 campaign, not once did anybody in the elite media ask why Barack Obama voted in favor of legalizing infanticide. OK? So let's be clear here.
(APPLAUSE)
GINGRICH: If we're going to have a debate about who the extremist is on these issues, it is President Obama who, as a state senator, voted to protect doctors who killed babies who survived the abortion. It is not the Republicans."
I just started wading through “popular” msm headlines and will confirm — NEWT SCORED! The long knives (from both sides) are out for Gingrich.
Robert Stacy McCain (no less): ........”Newt Gingrich had arguably the best performance of the four finalists for the Republican nomination. CNN’s moderator John King was booed when he asked a question submitted by a viewer online: “Since birth control is the latest hot topic, which candidate believes in birth control, and if not, why?” This prompted Gingrich to lecture that “not once in the 2008 campaign, not once did anybody in the elite media ask why Barack Obama voted in favor of legalizing infanticide. … If we’re going to have a debate about who the extremist is on these issues, it is President Obama who, as a state senator, voted to protect doctors who killed babies who survived the abortion. It is not the Republicans.”.....
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/02/23/arizona-anti-climax
John seemed to be able to graciously ignore the MANY times he was gored by Mitt and Newt, and get on with doing the same thing that got him gored in the first place. Had it been me, I would have gotten out of my chair asked him why he felt it necessary to continually add to the questions asked, and then punched his lights out. Ok I wouldn’t have, but my desire button was constantly being punched.
Just once I would like a moderator who knows how to shut up after asking tough but reasonable question, not dripping with gotcha and partisan leftist leanings.
Thank you all FReepers for the debate analyses. Didn’t watch all of it.
However, I saw the pre-debate interview with Cindy McCain who was gushing over the Romneys and she actually said:
‘THIS IS MITT’S YEAR’ aka IT’S MITT’S TURN!!!!!!!!!!
Does anyone need more proof that the GOPE smoke filled room still exists???
NRO pimping that Romney ‘won’?
Who knew? [ROTFLOL]
NRO = “News” for Romney Only
>> Santorum fell so badly into the trap of looking like a moderate playing conservative
Santorum doesn’t just LOOK LIKE that. He IS that — a moderate big-government fan pretending to be conservative.
Newt was GREAT on everything!
Energy.
National Security.
Israel.
Life.
Taxes.
Reforming government.
10th Amendment.
Education.
Jobs/Economy.
Media Hypocrisy.
The elite media (and the party leaders) are weary of this primary. They don’t like being dragged around the country (wasting “precious” time and spending money) to be at these events. They want to stay home and not have to cover all these candidates, primaries, caucuses! Oh My!...
They want it narrowed down to a GOP nominee against Obama.
But they have lost control of the base.
he won that debate hands down and no one could say otherwise unless they were watching a different debate.
1 Gingrich
2 Paul
3 Romney
4 Santorum
My order for placement in this debate.
Newt’s mind and conservative philosophy would be an awful thing to waste. He is the man for our times.
And he beat them all on IMMIGRATION.
After the debate Gov. Jan Brewer singled him out as giving the best answer.
.......”And a modern system would be — just take control of the border. It is utterly stupid to say that the United States government can’t control the border. It’s a failure of will, it’s a failure of enforcement.
(APPLAUSE)
GINGRICH: So let me just take that one example. Let’s assume you could, tomorrow morning, have a president who wanted to work with your governor, that instead of suing Arizona, helped Arizona, who actually worked with Arizona. Now —
(APPLAUSE)
GINGRICH: — what’s the fiscal reality three years from now in your emergency rooms, in your schools, in your prisons, of controlling the border? It’s a lot less expensive. You just took a major step towards a less expensive future. So I think it is possible to modernize the federal government and cut taxes and develop energy simultaneously. And the three lead you to Gilbert’s concern. Let’s get back to a balanced budget.”.....
That was baked in the cake with the selection of CNN as broadcast facilitator.
I sometimes watch CCTV, the Communist Chinese version of CNN. I swear they're better -- and they're Communists!
My wife was fixated on the back and forth between Mitt, and Rick, when they should in her mind concentrate on Obama.
I’m certainly not going to argue the point. So I agree with your order. Ron Paul was indeed consistent, despite what I thought was a far more reality based comment on Iran from Newt. At least the two weren’t at each others throats like Mitt and Rick.
And NEWT continued later:
“KING: Mr. Speaker, the fence has been a point of contention in the race. And one of your high-profile supporters, a gentleman who’s been up here during this campaign, Governor Rick Perry of Texas, is here tonight. He said this: if you build a 30-foot wall from El Paso to Brownsville, the 35-foot ladder business gets really good.
You signed a pledge to construct a double fence. Why is Governor Perry wrong?
FORMER REP. NEWT GINGRICH, R-GA., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: He’s not wrong. They’d have to have two 35-foot ladders because it’s a double fence. (LAUGHTER)
Look, the fact is I helped Duncan Hunter pass the first fence bill in San Diego when I was Speaker of the House. San Diego and Tijuana are the most densely populated border. It turned out it worked. It worked dramatically. Duncan and I would be glad to testify. He’s former chairman of the national — of the Defense Committee — how much it worked.
However, it stopped. It stopped in part because there was a wetlands. It turned out none of the illegal immigrants cared about wetlands policy. Then you had to go and build around the wetlands, which we did. The further we have gone with the fence, the fewer the people have broken into California.
Now, the thing that’s fascinating, though, John, is you quoted a government study of how much it would cost. That’s my earlier point. If you modernize the federal government so it’s competent, you could probably do it for 10 percent of the cost of that study.
The fact is —
(APPLAUSE)
GINGRICH: — what I would do, I would — I have — I have a commitment at newt.org, I would — to finish the job by January 1, 2014, I would initiate a bill that would waive all federal regulations, requirement and studies.
I would ask Governor Brewer here, I would ask Governor Martinez, Governor Brown, and Governor Perry to become the co-leaders in their state. We would apply as many resources as are needed to be done by January 1 of 2014, including, if necessary — there are 23,000 Department of Homeland Security personnel in the D.C. area.
I’m prepared to move up to half of them to Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas. This is a doable thing.”....
And this is why the EGOP is actually firing some brain cells and discussing controlling the debate process from square one next time around.
My luck they will give us the likes of David Brooks and "Sullivan" as panelist asking questions... Ugh...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.