Once Wolf Blitzer had, remarkably, found a way to further insult the intelligence of his audience — asking the candidates why their wives would be the best First Lady* — I figured it was just about time for me to stop watching the debate and do any number of other things with my evening. Besides, I’d already seen the first hour or so (however long it was; it’s hard to keep track of time when you’re drinking, which, this being a GOP debate, I was) and witnessed Mitt Romney most definitively put an end to Newtmentum.
The whole debate went pretty terribly for Newt, but either this or the moment when he awkwardly tried to his attack-the-moderator shtick, to diminished returns, was the low point.
The amateur political scientist in me rebels at the idea of putting as much stock into the debates as I am, but I think it’s undeniable that Gingrich has lived (and died) almost entirely off of his debate performances. His appeal was a supposed ability to humiliate and silence President Obama during a series of “Lincoln-Douglas-styled” debates (eye-roll); and that ability was founded upon twin planks. One, he could defend himself against imagined but no doubt scurrilous attacks from the President (whom the South Carolina audience saw in Juan Cole Williams ); and two, he’d be able to take it to Obama forcefully and unapologetically.
Well, in this back-and-forth with Mitt, he failed in both tasks. Not only did he wilt in the face of Mitt’s unctuous onslaught (probably to some degree out of surprise, but also because he’s a textbook bully), but he failed miserably in counter-attacking Romney, opting to take a high road that he had no right to claim on grounds temperamental or electoral (he was far from a prohibitive favorite in the Sunshine State). Topping it all off is the fact that as far as I could see, Newt almost never made eye contact with Romney — not when he was attacking him, nor when he himself was being attacked. We’re social creatures and as that cliché says, 90% of our communication is non-verbal. Voters are judging candidates as much (probably more) by what they look like as what they say.
So, yes, Newt did terribly and I think it’s fair to say — finally — that his candidacy is effectively over. He’ll notch a respectable number in Flordia, I imagine, and he’ll run some more cutthroat attack ads; he won’t go quietly into that good night. But he’s finished.
The flip-side of the narrative has become one about Romney somehow exploding out of his consistent pattern of mediocrity in these debates and flashing signs of a newborn and hard-won talent that could give the President real problems come fall. I’m not sold. I thought Romney did indeed come off as more of a human being than he usually does, but that’s because he was legitimately desperate. For the first time, he didn’t have that unbecoming air of smugness, that condescending, paternalistic smile. He was, for the first time, acting as if he believed he could lose. And it looked good on him.
But I think what’s mostly got people excited here is the thrill of the new. Romney had been so unwaveringly disciplined, such an automaton, that any slight divergence from his chosen path was bound to be well-received, especially by a press corps and commentariat that has long since become worn-out with these debates and with what has been in many ways a rather dull primary in general. A useful example, I think, is to remember those handful of moments every year during which the President supposedly flashes some anger and reveals some fire. People then, too, get all worked up, as if Obama had announced himself the next Jesse Jackson. It never happens.
Remember: these are extremely successful people; the likelihood that they’ll stop doing that which they believe has gotten them this far? Not high.
Another thing I’d keep in mind when analysis Romney’s performance is the fact that, interspersed
throughout his otherwise likable performance were still those clanging moments of intense inauthenticity and outright lying. His claim to not have seen his own ad — an ad from his campaign, not Super PAC, so it included the “I approve this message” boilerplate — was not only absurd and insulting, but it was a stupid move that he’s already tried (and failed) to pull off before! He had a similar slip into old habits in an exchange with Gingrich during which he tried to claim that, because his investments in Goldman, Sachs are part of a blind trust, he should not be held accountable:
Romney answered the charge this way: “First of all, my investments are not made by me. My investments for the last ten years have been in a blind trust, managed by a trustee. Secondly, the investments that they made, we learned about this, as we made our financial disclosure, had been in mutual funds and bonds. I don’t own stock in either. There are bonds that the investor has held through mutual funds.”
Now the problem — which, if you’re a follower of Romney, you can probably already guess — is that someone with a lot of credibility vis-à-vis high-end investment says that Romney’s wrong on this one. His name? Mitt Romney:
Mitt Romney defends his investments in the Cayman Islands and elsewhere on the grounds he can’t control money in a “blind trust.” But in 1994 Romney was attacking his opponent, Senator Ted Kennedy, over his blind trust’s investments, calling the move “an age-old ruse.”
*This, by the way, was a totally subtle and not at all sexist way for Blitzer to allow the Not Gingriches the opportunity to brag about their longstanding relationships, as if the solidity of one’s marriage is just another consumer activity, like investing in Goldman, Sachs, that an aspiring candidate must defend before the masses.
The debate schedule is completely insane. No one needs to see them THAT much. It was like this on both sides in 2008 too. Craziness…Report
I don’t really understand what these debates are supposed to accomplish, either. They don’t have enough substance to the actual questions or conversations to be of much use for the politically active, and the average voter’s not gonna tune in anyway.Report
Money for the networks, maybe?Report
Agreed. It is insane. I’ve mostly stopped watching, but tuned in last night to see if Newt’s performance. I was kind of hoping his head would explode.Report
We need to see them that much so that we can all remind ourselves of how much we hate old rich white men. If all we did was read stuff we might forget that.Report
“This, by the way, was a totally subtle and not at all sexist way for Blitzer to allow the Not Gingriches the opportunity to brag about their longstanding relationships, as if the solidity of one’s marriage is just another consumer activity, like investing in Goldman, Sachs, that an aspiring candidate must defend before the masses. ”
I actually thought Newt handled the question quite well, speaking about what Calista (is that her name?) would actually bring to the table, with her arts background or whatever. First Ladies, at least in my brief lifetime, always seem to take up a cause (e.g., Michelle Obama and healthy eating). Hearing what cause Calista might take up was interesting, though I doubt it is going to sway a voter (“I hate that Gingrich character, but MAN would I love to see more performances of “Guys and Dolls”). At the same time, I think of few things that must infuriate Michelle Obama, an accomplished Harvard law graduate, more than being “reduced” to a champion for balanced school lunches or whatever.Report
Romney did seem to pull his balls out of the blind trust last night and put in an almost human-like performance–a bit of passion here, a splash of anger there. While I find Romney to be almost pathologically disingenuous and dishonest, Newt’s even worse on both counts. So, it was gratifying to see Romney take him down several notches. Hell, even Wolf Blitzer got into the act, refusing to let Newt get away with his “victim of the liberal media” meme. You go, Wolf.
I have to agree that, barring some unforeseen circumstance, Newt’s pretty much toast and can start planning his trip back to the Beltway (although I suspect the Gingrich name has lost some if its panache–wonder if he’ll be back as an analyst on Fox News anytime soon).Report
Yay! Something kind of negative we can say about Gingrich! Thank CHRIST we can all agree that he’s doomed now, just like he was doomed after Iowa and doomed after new Hampshire, and doomed after every debate so far, and doomed after a former wife started snarking about him, and look whatever he’s just doomed okay? Just agree that Romney’s gonna win, okay? I mean, how else is Obama gonna win the election?Report
I’m not going to say that he’s *DOOMED*, I’m just going to say that I’m going to be seeing other people whether he likes it or not.Report
I think Obama beats either Gingrich or Romney, barring some kind of economic or other disaster. In that case, I’d prefer the nominee be Romney because I see him as far better able to deal with pressure than Gingrich.Report
Lots of Republicans protest-voted for Obama. They deserved what they got, but it’s left them with a “eff all y’all” attitude about the whole notion of voting for anyone. The Republican candidate could win if he could get these people back into the voting booth. And that isn’t something that a slick-as-snot, moneyed-elite, “what can I do for you sir” Northeastener is going to be able to do.Report
I thought Santorum has really “grown up” during the debates. Not his positions (I find they generally range from appalling to HOLY SHIT!, but that’s just me), but he seems to be doing much better up there, even in the face of being pushed to the side (literally and figureatively).Report
Yeah, he had a good night last night. He does seem to have more of a presence than he used to.Report
I don’t think Santorum’s being anything other than what he’s always been.
I *do* think that, up until now, most people were aware of him only as the punchline to a dirty joke.Report
(whom the South Carolina audience saw in Juan Cole)
Juan Williams, though I imagine South Carolina Republicans aren’t big on Juan Cole either (or for that matter, John Cole). (They probably like John Williams though, and these debates could really use him)Report
Ugh. I do this all the fishin’ time lately. Thanks for the catch.Report
“He was, for the first time, acting as if he believed he could lose. And it looked good on him.”
I gotta think that he and his advisors know that the general election is going to be a hard fought battle, so if indeed adversity brings out the best in Romney, this is not good news for Obama.
“the opportunity to brag about their longstanding relationships, as if the solidity of one’s marriage is just another consumer activity, like investing in Goldman, Sachs, that an aspiring candidate must defend before the masses.”
Well, though, it is. America is not France.Report