Another win for Newt: Observations while not live-blogging tonight's Republican debate in South Carolina

By Michael J.W. Stickings

I'm not live-blogging, but I'm watching closely, with another eye on American Idol, on this perhaps the most important day of the 2012 Republican presidential race so far.

Quick impression: Newt, as expected, is doing exceptionally well, while Romney, as usual, is playing what in football would be the most preventative of prevent defences, doing everything he can to avoid a gaffe, saying nothing of substance, resorting to his usual talking points, most of them ridiculously anti-Obama (his default position to deflect attention away from his own positions and appeal to the anti-Obama right) being anything but a persuasive, dynamic leader -- anything but genuinely presidential and more like some sort of presidential caricature as performed by some sort of robot programmed by aliens who base their understanding of what is presidential on two-dimensional stereotypes.

(UPDATE: Here are my grades for the debate -- In a vacuum, Santorum (A-) won. But Newt (B+) did what he had to do to keep his surge going and to deflect attention away from Marianne and his even worse past than we thought. Romney (C) was typically mediocre and unimpressive. Paul (B-) was okay but seems less and less relevant. In the end, Newt was the winner if only because he will benefit the most from a strong performance.)

I'm also following Andrew Sullivan, who is doing some very fine live-blogging tonight (as usual). Here are a few of his finer observations, in reverse chronological order, with my comments in blue italics.

-- "Why can't Romney once - just once - directly answer the question asked, instead of insisting on saying what he wants to say first? It's deeply irritating and underlines his too-polished, too arrogant affect. And then he forgets even what the actual question was in the first place. Then he segues into a bizarre attack on Newt's relationship with Reagan. He lost it back there. It's his worst performance yet - at the very moment he needs to deliver his best." (It was just Romney being Romney. What else is new?) (9:00 pm)

-- "Buzzfeed says that Newt won the debate in the first five minutes. There's still some time to go but that's my impression as well. Romney is being flattened tonight. Santorum's brutal, relentless attacks, Newt's ccontempt, Paul's jocular indifference... they all contrast with classic, mindless robo-speak from Mr Plastic." (That's a shorter way of saying what I said above: "classic, mindless robo-speak.") "Now Gingrich has ambushed him on his tax returns. This is what South Carolina always does. It's sometimes necessary to look away before the feeding frenzy ends. But the result is always bloody. Romney's sinking. He's sinking." (But will he sink far enough for Newt to win on Saturday? With such a decisive win here, there's hardly any doubt the Newt surge will continue. But what about the Marianne G. interview later? That could quickly derail his astonishing comeback.) (8:48 pm)

-- "A classic Gingrich phrase: 'Mildly amazing.' Classic passive aggression from the 'shy boy' who's now so angry he explodes spontaneously. Then Newt tickles the Southern g-spot, by saying that his debating Obama will be a battle between 'knowledge' and a 'TelePrompTer.' I don't think Newt realizes how his contempt and condescension toward Obama is riddled with racism." (He recoils in horror and then lashes out whenever he's faced with the racism charge, but he has a long record of this sort of racially-charged rhetoric.) (8:44 pm)

-- "Santorum hones his manufacturing working class economic chops in a very deft and indrect criticism of Romney's kind of capitalism. A very effective performance. They're all on tonight, it seems. But Gingrich's spirited, angry, anti-media rant at the start towers over the rest. (Yes, Santorum has been typically strong: confident and coherent. But I'm just not sure it matters anymore. At this point, unless Newt completely tanks as a result of the Marianne interview tonight, all Santorum will be doing by staying in the race is dividing the anti-Romney vote and hindering Gingrich's chances of knocking off the frontrunner. Still, while I don't agree with him on, well, on anything, I've got to credit him with an impressive performance ever since he surged up the polls pre-Iowa. He has way too much baggage, but if he'd been seen as a serious contender much earlier in the race, he might have been a potent conservative alternative to Romney, everything Perry and Bachmann were not.) (8:30 pm)

-- "Gingrich is on a roll - rattling off a list of South Carolina issues, including the port of Charleston. Then he quickly and effectively summarizes a core case against the dodgy practices of Bain Capital. Romney then tries to avoid answering the direct question about Bain and seems to conflate 'crony capitalism' with Democrats' relationships with the union. He does not address the core issue of how you make millions off bankrupting companies." (I don't see the Bain attacks hurting Romney all that much in the GOP primaries, given that he can position himself as a successful capitalist and where there is little concern for the poor and disadvantaged, or for income inequality, or for justice, but this could come back to haunt him in the general election, with independents particularly.) (8:20 pm)

-- "Newt's response to the open marriage is turned into a tour de force against the media. He calls John King's questions 'as close to despicable as I can imagine.' The crowd loves it. The first response as to whether he wanted to talk about it: 'No, but I will.' Perfect. Then he rounds on King and gets another standing ovation. I think he may have won the primary tonight with that response." (You knew this was coming, and I wrote about it earlier: Newt always tries to turn the tables by going after the media.) (8:12 pm)

The wildest day of the campaign so far keeps exceeding expectations. And we still have the interview to come. Crazy.

All hail Mitt Romney! -- how last night's "caustic" GOP debate in New Hampshire was really all about deference and resignation

By Michael J.W. Stickings

On the one hand, last night's Republican debate in New Hampshire was "caustic," with the various anti-Romneys lining up to take their generally lame and mostly ineffectual shots at the frontrunner -- and of course continuing to show just what right-wing extremists they are, Huntsman excepted. There are occasional glimpses of nastiness in this race, but for the most part the tone is one of respect, politeness, and deference. And while the anti-Romneys have often gone after each other (e.g., Ron Paul's attacks on Gingrich and Santorum), it would appear that a certain resignation has set in. Mitt Romney will be the nominee, no one really wants to weaken him any further, and he continues to float through this whole ridiculous process largely unscathed. Last night's debate only "caustic" from the ever-so-courteous Meet the Press perspective of the Beltway.

(Speaking of MTP, this morning's debate was indeed "far livelier than its predecessor," as Steve Benen puts it, but still hardly a fireworks display. Perhaps the key takeaway is that Romney, good plutocrat/oligarch that he is, thinks that politics is for the rich. Aristotle would not be amused.)

Read what you want about the debate, but do not neglect Esquire's Charles Pierce, who penetrates through the bullshit to get to the heart of the matter:

At this moment, I am still digesting the incredible farrago of gibbering nonsense, vengeful religious rage, political chickenshit, and Mandarin Chinese that combined to make the 45,670th of 62,390 scheduled Republican presidential debates the Level 4 biohazard that it was.

*****

In brief, Saturday night may have been the most naked piece of point-shaving and game-throwing since the 1919 World Series. I've seen fixed prizefights where the issue was more in doubt. The other candidates went so far into the tank for Willard that they may not dry off until next August. In the 1950's, Frankie Carbo would have had them all killed because they made it look so damned obvious. Where was the promised Gingrich assault on the frontrunner? Where was the blood, the guts, the glory? Where was the damn slasher film we all anticipated? This was a waltz, and a clumsy one. If the people in that audience had any pride at all, they'd have attacked the ABC platform and demanded satisfaction for this massive piece of consumer fraud.

The coalescing has begun. The non-Romneys seem to be coming to grips with the fact that there's virtually no chance that Willard isn't the nominee. So, by and large, the rest of them started paying court staying away from him.

Do yourself a favor and read the whole piece. It's awesome, including his takedown of Santorum for saying there are no classes in America: "I have never heard a politician say anything that stupid before in 30 years of watching politicians talk in public."

In the end, these clowns merely embarrassed themselves still further, again excepting the generally respectable Huntsman:

At the very end, just as I was beginning to wonder if the end would ever come, they were asked what would they be doing on Saturday night if they weren't on that stage. (Ooh, ooh! Ask me! Ask me!) Gingrich started off by saying he'd be home "watching the national-championship college basketball game." He meant the football game, and he caught himself, sort of, so we'll give him a pass. Then two of his compadres — including Willard — agreed with him. Yeah, they'd be watching that national-championship game, you betcha, boy howdy.

The BCS championship game takes place Monday night. Three members of the Republican presidential field told America last night that, if they weren't in New Hampshire being dicks to themselves and the rest of the nation, they'd be home watching a football game that wouldn't be played for nearly another 48 hours. 

Morons.

About that Gingrich-Huntsman "debate" yesterday

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Politico:

The meeting of two presidential candidates here today was billed as a successor to the Lincoln Douglas debates, but turned out to be a festival of self-congratulation intended less to tease out differences between Newt Gingrich and Jon Huntsman than simply signal their status as serious men.

Well, Huntsman is a serious man, I suppose, but Gingrich is still an egomaniac.

Now, sure, a Gingrich-Huntsman debate (or, rather, discussion, as there wasn't much disagreement) is more substantial than, say, a Perry-Cain debate (where there would be disagreement about the number of Supreme Court justices and about what continent Libya is on), and if only by the standards of their own anti-intellectual party these two did have a fairly substantive discussion about foreign policy and national security -- whatever you may think of their specific policy prescriptions.

But let's not make too much of this. It wasn't Lincoln-Douglas. It was just a forum for Gingrich to sell himself as the "serious" candidate of 2012, particularly without Romney there, as the Republican candidate most able to stand up to Obama (and put him in his place -- and, yes, this racist fantasy of putting the uppity Negro in his place is driving a lot of Republicans, and Newt is more than willing to blow the dog whistle, appealing to that racism), and for Huntsman to pre-sell himself as a "serious" candidate in 2016 should the GOP not take the White House next year and turn to a more moderate option four years later.

It was all just a big show, in other words, and Newt did well enough to reinforce his standing as clear GOP frontrunner.

**********

For an excellent description of the "debate," here's The Guardian's Richard Adams:

If the famous Lincoln-Douglas debates had been as insipid and smug as yesterday's self-styled copy – a debate between Newt Gingrich and Jon Huntsman – slavery would probably still be legal in America.

In reality the long-winded discussion in New Hampshire between the two 2012 Republican presidential hopefuls was more like a warm bath than a hot-tempered dialogue.

In 1858 Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas clashed over slavery, equality and what Lincoln called "the eternal struggle" over right and wrong – "The two principles that have stood face to face from the beginning of time," in Lincoln's words.

By 2011, Gingrich and Huntsman politely mused alongside each other's thoughts, largely agreeing and when they didn't agree they merely agreed not to disagree. How agreeable.

The high point of the night came when Huntsman, in the middle of a windy reply, spotted a family member in the audience falling asleep. "I see my daughter nodding off, so let's move on," he said.

I was following it on Twitter, and then watched some clips, and found it an utter bore. Good thing I didn't waste more time on it.

(photo)

Just how ridiculous is Donald Trump?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

So ridiculous even Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann want no part of his "debate."

Which means the "debate," really just an excuse for The Donald and his megalomania to be in the spotlight again, will be a Gingrich-Santorum affair (Paul and Huntsman won't be there either), to the extent they aren't overshadowed by Trump, that is, a "debate" between the frontrunner and an afterthought.

And yet people will still watch (assuming it's actually held). And why? Because Trump is crazy, and because you never know what he'll do or say, and because morbid curiosity rules the day in our popular and political culture.

Even the generally unreasonable Perry and Bachmann are staying away. That tells you all you need to know.

Huntsman and Gingrich to debate in New Hampshire

By Richard K. Barry

Although GOP hopeful Jon Huntsman isn't interested in a debate moderated by professional goofball Donald Trump, he does have to find other creative ways to get himself into the game. So Huntsman has decided that it makes sense to go one-on-one against the most recent candidate to take over the lead position in the race: Newt Gingrich. 

As Tommy Christopher reports at Mediaite:

In an email to reporters, the Huntsman campaign announced it had accepted an invitation to a Lincoln-Douglas style debate with current frontrunner Newt Gingrich, to be held in New Hampshire. Huntsman campaign manager Tim Miller also twisted the knife into Trump and rival Mitt Romney a little more.

This certainly is a significant gamble for Gingrich, who has tried to paint himself as the smartest person in the room amongst the Republican candidates, and a significant coup for Huntsman, who needs to find a way, any way, to get noticed.

Huntsman is putting all his eggs in the New Hampshire primary basket, and this debate will likely be such an oddity that all eyes are likely to be on it. 

Don't really know what's in it for Newt, besides the fact that he's so full of himself he will take any opportunity to prove he is the serious contender in the race. And a debate with Huntsman, a guy a lot of people think is intellectually substantial, may help him make the case -- assuming he does well. 

It would be great to see Newt brought low by his own hubris. I'm just really not sure Huntsman can get the job done.

Here's the press release from Huntsman's campaign announcing the event. Nice shots at Romney and Trump indeed.

Manchester- Jon Huntsman for President today announced that Governor Huntsman will be participating in a Lincoln-Douglas style debate with Newt Gingrich in New Hampshire this month. Details pending negotiations with the Gingrich campaign.

In addition, our campaign is declining the invitation to participate in the Donald Trump Apprentice Debate on December 27th.

Campaign spokesman Tim Miller issued the following statement:

"We look forward to discussing the issues that matter to the American people in a serious, substantive debate with Speaker Gingrich later this month. It is telling that Governor Romney has declined to participate because this substantive format makes it hard for him to hide from his record.

In addition, we have declined to participate in the 'Presidential Apprentice' Debate with The Donald. The Republican Party deserves a serious discussion of the issues so voters can choose a leader they trust to defeat President Obama and turn our economy around. We are confident that leader will be Jon Huntsman."

At last, something to write about Huntsman. It's been a long time. 

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Donald Trump to "moderate" Republican debate

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Crazy, you say? Yes. No doubt.

I'm not sure Trump can moderate anything, because anything Trump is involved with is, by definition, about Trump, and it's hard to see how he doesn't completely dominate this event and overwhelm the candidates.

So what is it all about? As usual, Jon Huntsman proves to be the lone voice of sense in the GOP wilderness of madness:

The conservative news magazine Newsmax announced Friday that it would co-sponsor a Republican presidential debate moderated by media personality and real estate tycoon Donald Trump on Dec. 27th in Des Moines, Ia., but they may have trouble convincing candidates to show up.

Former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman is the first to send his regrets.

"We look forward to watching Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich suck up to Trump with a big bowl of popcorn," Huntsman spokesman Tim Miller told Yahoo News. 

It's not going to be pretty. But I suppose train wrecks like this do indeed have some morbid appeal.