The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : CNN Debate Wrap

Text Size

CNN Debate Wrap

By W. James Antle, III on 2.22.12 @ 11:54PM

There has been one common theme in the Republican presidential debates this year: when a candidate appears to have things well in hand, they suddenly turn in their worst debate performance. It happened to Mitt Romney in South Carolina after his New Hampshire primary victory. It happened to Newt Gingrich after winning South Carolina heading into Florida. It happened to Rick Perry repeatedly after taking the national lead.

Tonight in Mesa, Arizona, Rick Santorum had his worst debate performance of the campaign. What impact it will have, I don't know. But he was in striking distance of defeating Romney in both Michigan and Arizona. He did little that will aid that goal in the CNN debate. Santorum's team player answer on No Child Left Behind was the classic go-along-to-get-along Republicanism that tends to cause government to grow even when the GOP holds power. It also undermined Santorum's image as someone who follows his principles no matter what. Santorum did poorly in the earmarks exchange and, though he handled himself well in the Arlen Specter endorsement question, got into a lot of Senate process. In my view, he lost the family planning funding dispute with Ron Paul.

Gingrich came back to life with a strong debate performance. John King must be his favorite moderator. The former speaker was once again able to praise his rivals on the issues where they are most popular with the Republican base and position himself against the media. Romney didn't score any knockout blows, but he had a solid performance. Paul tried to make his position on Iran less radioactive to primary voters by emphasizing his plea that Congress actually vote on and declare war, but it did not satisfy the hawks' appetites.

View all comments (11) | Leave a comment

Drek| 2.23.12 @ 12:38AM

Yea.

Santorum, the principled team player doesn't sound well.

Of course he was right, politics is a team sport, and the quarterback of that team, George W. Bush, asked him to go over a cliff time after time, and he went.

The leadership could have stood up to some of the idiocies of the Bush tenure, {such as the Dubai Ports deal for instance, -------- Bush was pissed the party wouldn't go to the mattresses for that one...}, but they didn't.

And now we've got problems because of it.

This issue of earmarks is really an irrelevancy, but it looms large because it's seen as symptomatic of the flaws in Republican leadership.

And the other reason earmarks figure so prominently is because of the candidacy of John McCain, who used his stand on them to try to ingratiate himself with a base that was thoroughly pissed at him for other reasons.

Bob K.| 2.23.12 @ 1:04AM

Mr. Antle,

These guys are already boring the Republican base to death and there is still 8 months left to this interminable campaign!

They are making Obama look like a fresh face and you blogging dolts are going along with it! Trying to make lace purses out of sow's ears!

W. James Antle III| 2.23.12 @ 1:06AM

I certainly don't see any lace purses anywhere. Do you?

Bob K.| 2.23.12 @ 9:04AM

Not hardly!

Kitty| 2.23.12 @ 6:14AM

That's your opinion, not mine.

WTF| 2.23.12 @ 2:21AM

Santorum was nowhere near that bad. You guys watch and repeat like parrots what the CNN analyst say. I predicted no matter how Santorum did tonight, they'd say Romney won. Guess I was right.

Santorum exposed Romney for having no candidacy if the economy turns, no defense on Romneycare, etc. You do not judge on debt ceiling votes, that's debt we owe, you judge on big ticket item votes, getting those right, and Santorum usually did.

He supported balanced budgets since 1994 and cut cap and balance. He's the only alternative to Romney at this point.

Dai Alanye| 2.23.12 @ 5:23PM

I think it might have been Santorum's worst debate, with Romney and Paul tag-teaming him. The remarkable thing, though, is that it wasn't all that bad.

He twice knocked Romney back on his heels, with his defense of endorsing Spector and with his attacking Romney's pointless boast of balancing the Massachusetts budget. And despite all the distorted flak he took over his record, he only once lost his composure, and not too badly.

The fact is, even at his worst Santorum is pretty good.

What he needed was to call RonPaul on his legislative record. Something on the order of, "Yes, I've passed some bills I regret, but at least I was a productive legislator. What about you, Ron? How many bills have you passed during your half century in Congress?

beebop2| 2.23.12 @ 5:31AM

I absolutely refuse to watch any mainstream media. I will not reward the hacks like John King.

Simon Templar| 2.23.12 @ 10:41AM

Last night's debate was very telling but I am not sure that it can be summed up as Antle would like as solely a complete disaster for Santorum. He may wish that, encourage that, but it still remains a mixed bag.

Now, last nights photop of the candidates congratulating each other probably was the most illuminating image and statement of this whole campaign...Romney and Paul high fiving each other and Santorum and Gingrich warmly showing support to each other.

So, what does it say?

What we have here is basically a microcosm of the Republican party and the political landscape of today's differing philosophies and political strains within the "conservative" electorate itself.

First, one may ask just why or how can Romney be so chumming with Ron Paul. Ron Paul, remember, wails against the 'fake conservative' and thinks of himself as the pure real conservative. Then just what has he in common with a northeastern liberal republican that has come to conservativism by his own admission recently?
Well, that is because both of them are essentially progressives and share much more in common than they do with the others. Both are not conservatives. They both detest social conservatives and much of the conservative philosophy.

Most of what Romney says is absolute pandering to conservatives particularly on the social issues, foreign policy, and national security. These three areas are what they have in commmon. Both are willing to work with Progressives on all these issues and against conservatives and the wide base of the Republican voting bloc.

Now, the other two would be best categorized as pragmatic, flawed Reagan Republicans that represent the wide base of concerns of the anti-Romney seventy five percent of the Republican electorate. They are both people who have spent a great deal of time in politics slugging it out and sometimes taking compromising positions out of pragmatic political reasons to achieve their overall objectives. Santorum represents that large segment of working class social conservativism and Reagan democrats. There is no doubt about his sincerity in this area. Gingrich is also a player and represents the Reagan conservative, the experienced politician, the consumate politician and has made some mistakes along the way that he will readily admit if pressed on. He is the intellectual side of conservativism, the pragmatist, the power broker and the ambitious and fighting element in some conservatives. Both men share more in common then they do with the other two.

So, what we have is a Progressive Libertarian, a Progressive Republican, a working class Social Conservative, and a Reagan Traditional Conservative professional politician.
Those are your choices.

So my advice is two fold. Stop listening to the pundits, the smears, half truths, the politician's rhetoric, the polls...

Second, open your eyes, take a good look at them and yourself and make your decision and stick with it.