«--Previous Post | Blog Index | Next Post--»
Whack-a-Mitt: The Republicans Debate in NH
Before you feel sorry for Mitt Romney for getting picked on relentlessly in tonight's Republican debate at St. Anselm College in New Hampshire, consider the fact that he's devoted millions of dollars to picking on everyone else.
There was no question who the collected cast of Republican candidates wanted to put between the crosshairs. Time and again, the former Massachusetts Governor was the target of full-scale grenade attacks and small potshots.
They frequently used his words against him. On the topic of the Iraq War, Governor Mike Huckabee looked straight at Romney, who has sniped Huckabee for abandoning the President, and said, "Governor Romney, you yourself on '60 Minutes' said that we had left Iraq in a mess. You've also said that you weren't going to have this 'my way or no way' philosophy… I supported the president in the war before you did. I supported the surge when you didn't."
On immigration, John McCain defended his position from his critics on the right, including Romney, by saying, "Now, no better authority than Governor Romney believed that it's not amnesty because two years ago, he was asked, and he said that my plan was, quote, 'reasonable,' and was not amnesty. It's a matter of record."
McCain delivered some of the petty remarks, too. When Romney, who is notorious for his flip-flops, said that he was going to more fully adopt Barack Obama's message of change because, "that was the message coming out of Iowa," John McCain replied, "I just wanted to say to Governor Romney, we disagree on a lot of issues, but I agree you are the candidate of change."
The attacks were at times almost gleeful. And that may be because Romney has run more negative ads than any of the candidates in the field. He has repeatedly hit Governor Huckabee on his record in Arkansas, and has several ads that imply Senator McCain is too old and out of touch to be president. (He also attacks McCain on immigration.) He has engaged in attack politics, and spent more than the rest of the field combined to do it.
But Romney didn't want to do it in person. When McCain responded to Romney's claim of being misquoted in the AP by saying, "When you change issues — positions on issues from time to time, you will get misquoted," Romney didn't hit back. He pleaded for civility, saying, "Senator, is there a way to have this about issues and not about personal attacks?"
And another:
ROMNEY: But, look, you know, Governor, don't try and characterize my position. Of course, this war...
HUCKABEE: Which one?
(LAUGHTER)
ROMNEY: You know, we're wise to talk about policies and not to make personal attacks.
Romney has demonstrated a willingness to play hardball with his money and his purchased airtime, but tonight he shied from the fight.
There is something to be said for this, however. Nobody looks good getting beat up, but at times, Thompson's barbs looked churlish, McCain's looked bullying, and Huckabee's tarnished his aw-shucks rep. Giuliani may have done benefited the most from the whack-a-Mitt routine simply by not participating and looking like an adult.
For the record, the debate would have been much smaller but for a quirk in Iowa's primary system. The Iowa Democratic Party has a viability rule built in which means that any candidate who received less than 15 percent of the votes in a caucus room came away with nothing. Thus, candidates like Biden and Dodd who may have consistently polled around 10-14 percent received such a tiny fraction of the actual delegates that they were forced to drop out.
The Republican Party in Iowa has no such rule, which means that a number of candidates who would have done as poorly as Biden or Dodd in the Democratic side appeared to do fairly well and lived to see New Hampshire's snowy hills. As a result, the Republican debate was larger than the Democratic one, which David will post on later tonight.
Frankly, however, I don't think the Republicans mind having Ron Paul in there, just to take one example. When it comes to foreign policy, each of the Republicans is trying to identify themselves as the heavyweight, and keeping around a punching bag like Paul (who is more right than any of them, but is a one-man minority in these GOP forums) is a service to the rest of the field.
Oh, and PS — I liked Michael Scherer's characterization of Romney here.
Oh, and PPS — Kudos to ABC and its partners for running what was largely a substance-filled debate. They asked solid questions and allowed just the right amount of back and forth.
Leave a Comment »
Posted by Jonathan Stein on 01/05/08 at 9:11 PM | E-mail | Print | Digg | de.licio.us | Reddit | Newsvine | Yahoo! MyWeb | StumbleUpon | Netscape | Google |
Comments
The way I see it after the debates.
Repubs-You've got your warfare/welfare candidates.
Dems-You've got your healthcare/welfare candidates.
You've got some repubs/dems that want both warfare/healthcare/welfare.
Then you've got Ron Paul. I think I'm going with Ron Paul.
Posted by: Todd Schuller on 01/05/08 at 10:01 PM Respond
Vis a vis Ron Paul - your punching bag comment caught my eye. I thought his polemic on the effect that the devaluation of the dollar has on the price of oil in the United States was a masterpiece.
Ron Paul has drawn a strong distinction between defending ourselves against imminent threats from terrorist thugs and preemptive invasions of countries like Iraq. Much of Rudy G.''s argument relies on confusing these two - we did not have to invade Iraq in order to kill Al Qaeda. There were no Al Qaeda in Iraq prior to the invasion (but there are now).
We do not need to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on bases in 130 countries in order to defeat Al Qaeda. It is unfortunate that this "Ron Paul wants to let the bad men come and kill us" argument carries as much weight as it does with people. But then again, many of these people believed that Iraq had nuclear bombs because that is what the current administration told them. I am hoping that Republicans will take a look at Dr. Paul and understand how sensible a non-interventionist foreign policy is.
Posted by: Dan Hansen on 01/05/08 at 10:16 PM Respond
Another chance to attack Mitt eh? There is an obvious reason Mitt got attacked tonight....he is the one to beat. You, the other candidates and the MSM media know that all too well. I thought he handled it in style. He is obviously the the best choice for president. The constant stupid attacks will only make him stronger.
Posted by: Kerry Johnson on 01/05/08 at 10:41 PM Respond
Mitt Romney deserved all the jabs he got. He's flipped on issues of morality like pro-choice and gay-rights. Yet his Mormon beliefs have remained the same. There isn't anyway to spin that other than to say he'll change his views to pander to whatever group will get him elected. We need a president that has moral courage and conviction. Romney is just a sell out.
Posted by: truthseeker on 01/06/08 at 5:32 AM Respond
Go Mitt!!! The other republicans looked like children who didn't get their way, so they go crying to the teacher. Showed MaCains and Huckabees true characters. Mean and devious.
Posted by: Linda on 01/06/08 at 6:22 AM Respond
ARCHIVE
January 6, 2008 - January 12, 2008
December 30, 2007 - January 5, 2008
December 23, 2007 - December 29, 2007
December 16, 2007 - December 22, 2007
December 9, 2007 - December 15, 2007
December 2, 2007 - December 8, 2007
November 25, 2007 - December 1, 2007
November 18, 2007 - November 24, 2007
November 11, 2007 - November 17, 2007
November 4, 2007 - November 10, 2007
October 28, 2007 - November 3, 2007
October 21, 2007 - October 27, 2007
October 14, 2007 - October 20, 2007
October 7, 2007 - October 13, 2007
September 30, 2007 - October 6, 2007
September 23, 2007 - September 29, 2007
September 16, 2007 - September 22, 2007
September 9, 2007 - September 15, 2007
September 2, 2007 - September 8, 2007
August 26, 2007 - September 1, 2007
August 19, 2007 - August 25, 2007
August 12, 2007 - August 18, 2007
August 5, 2007 - August 11, 2007
July 29, 2007 - August 4, 2007
RECENT COMMENTS
Hillary Clinton Tosses the Script (6)
Frank Sirk wrote:
I agree that Obama is the "empty suit" and simply spouts, ...
[more]
In New Hampshire, Hillary Finds It Tough To Dash Obama's Hope (29)
Shawn wrote:
Ummmm...what poll are you reading Ames? As of Sunday, the...
[more]
Dem Debate in NH Previews Clinton's Get-Obama Strategy (22)
Dr.Q wrote:
obamas new strategy. Present himself at an Arsenio Hall sh...
[more]
Obama's New Hampshire Ads — Preview of National Race? Cause for Concern? (7)
Liberal Larry wrote:
In 2012, the Democratic Party will be split in two when Ba...
[more]
McCain in NH: Would Be "Fine" To Keep Troops in Iraq for "A Hundred Years" (52)
Dr.Q wrote:
I am begining to understand the goverment. take for exampl...
[more]
Breaking: Obama Wins Iowa. Clinton and Edwards Tied for 2nd. Ron Paul Kicking Rudy's Ass (3)
tremayne wrote:
I found world reaction to Obama's win most interesting. It...
[more]
Maureen Dowd and Hillary's Familiar Fists of Fury (1)
Mo MoDo wrote:
It's easy. Dowd hates the Clintons but looooves her some O...
[more]
How Obama Won, and What it Means for the Democratic Race (65)
Duky wrote:
And, I say again. If Obama sweeps the nation he will do i...
[more]
Edwards Tips Hat to Obama in Concession Speech (6)
elizabeth phelps wrote:
what John Edwards need to work on that we have been workin...
[more]
Clinton, Edwards Campaigns Go Negative on Obama (8)
zadie17 wrote:
Obama has not run a "squeaky clean campaign." Check out Fa...
[more]
Movable Type 3.33



RECENT ENTRIES
McCain Confuses Voters (and Himself?) on Spending Cuts
Brent Scowcroft on the Cuba Embargo: "It Doesn't Do Anything"
Which Dictators Are Too Awful?
Obama Goes General
Clinton Campaign Keeps On Pushing Bogus Rationale
More on McCain's Climate Change Speech Today
China Outlaws Pringles and Fanta
The Weird McCain-Dictator Connection
Bob Barr Throws Down Gauntlet to Ron Paul