Saturday Night GOP Debate Thoughts -- Easy Night for Romney As Others Seem To Give Up
Posted by Ashish on 01.07.2012
The GOP field seems to have given up against Romney...
You really have to start wondering if the other candidates in the Republican field even believe they'd be a better President than Romney. Despite his win in Iowa, commanding lead in New Hampshire, and a solid lead in South Carolina, nobody bothered to lay a finger on Romney at the debate, instead opting to bicker among themselves while letting Romney stand tall and look above the field and Presidential. I can't remember an election where the presumptive frontrunner went through this many debates without anybody going after him in a serious way. It's really quite amazing because Rick Perry, the only guy in the field who did go after Romney a bit a few months back, was able to get under Romney's skin fairly easily. And yet nobody has bothered to challenge him on anything since. Even when the moderators specifically asked candidates to back up criticisms of Romney they had made previously, they shrunk down and hid. Gingrich, after boasting all week that he was going to get aggressive with Romney, cowered away when the moderators asked him to repeat his attacks against Romney's role at Bain, opting to hide behind a New York Times article instead of taking ownership of an attack he himself made two days ago.
The question now is why the other guys are even staying in this for at this point. Even Jon Huntsman, who is going after the exact same voters in New Hampshire that Romney is currently dominating, stayed timid and when he did criticize Romney, it was in a passive way and over the issue of China tariffs, hardly something that is going to shift voters. Incase Huntsman doesn't know the schedule, New Hampshire votes THIS TUESDAY. When exactly does he even plan to try and peel off Romney voters? Romney is being treated as if he is in last place, not worthy of attacking because he's so far behind. Wake up guys, Romney is killing all of you, you might want to question him a little bit.
It's almost as if the other candidates have resigned to the fact that Romney is going to win, and now are just battling for positioning so they can look as good as possible as an asterisk to Romney's triumph. This debate says a lot about the field -- most of these guys themselves don't believe they can be President and it shows. Romney continues to be the only guy up there acting like a President. 60%-70% of Republicans DON'T want Romney, and the candidates that represent them throw out debate performances like this? Are these guys just competing for a spot in a potential Romney administration? Did the secret GOP establishment all threaten them to step back and just let Romney have it? Makes you wonder. This was a pathetic performance by the entire field outside of Romney, especially given the circumstances and timing -- it's now or never for the rest of the field, and tonight they made it loud and clear what their preference is -- never. They all seem fine with never questioning Romney on Romneycare, his flip-flops, his record at Bain, etc. and instead seem to just want this campaign to end so they can go home.
And so, while all his opponents poked holes in each other for him, Romney stood there, repeated his talking points, attacked Obama, and walked off the stage smiling. Pretty easy night.
Another debate is set for Sunday morning, we'll see if anybody decides to grow a pair then instead of aiding Romney's smooth first class flight to the nomination.
Cue the whining Ron Paul supporters in 5...4...3...2...1..GO!
Posted By: Guest#7188 (Guest) on January 08, 2012 at 01:10 AM
Alright let me try and break it down for you. There are two sides to the republican party. 25% consider themselves moderates and openly support big govt expenditures in pursuit of maximizing profits for the public companies and banks with most influence on the NASDAQ or in the credit inudustry. 5% are perpetually undecided but a shopping 70% of republicans embrace being "conservative". This massive, often ignored segment of the republican party are in favor of small gov't, minimal intervention in private or economic life, and a balanced budget. This 70% are vehemently against Romney, while they instead support the candidate deemed most classically conservative.
Many ignorant commentators fail to see how Romney's supporters (incidentally 30% of the republican party) are fixed in their opinion and have no interest or intention to support a candidate toting limited govt and constitutionalism. It's the remaining 70% who are the target of Romney's GOP opposition.
Perry, Gingrich, Santorum, and Ron Paul are each gunning for the conservative vote... a vote that Romney has no hope or aspiration to capture. The purpose of the other candidates is to divide and dilute the votes of the powerful yet underrepresented and often mischaracterized conservative majority.
The reason for the infighting amongst the 2nd and 3rd tier candidates is not, as this article suggests, a concession of defeat to the frontrunner Kitten Romney. They are hand picked by my organization to dillute and defeat conservatism through division.
The only problem my establishment faces this year is the surging popularity of Ron Paul. As a true oldschool conservative, he's rocking the boat by effectively representing classical conservatism and exposing the panderers as "neo-con" hypocrites.
Ron Paul is going after the conservatives and has no interest in warring for Romney's supporters. His job is to increase voter turnouts, expose the hypocrisy of his neo-con opposition, and unify the winning conservative vote.
With the money his campaign has, and his preparedness for a marathon race, he just may have a shot of pulling it off.
GOD I hate Ron Paul.
Posted By: Lucifer (Guest) on January 08, 2012 at 02:58 AM
Because the Republican's have to pick someone now and start working to get him over. They can't have their favorites keep gettiing knocked off. And everyone realizes they're going too lose, anyway, so why not let Romney be the fall guy.
I tell you, with the Republican candidates as is, the only way Obama loses is if he's caught having sex with a male terrorist, in full arab dress.
Posted By: G-Walla (Guest) on January 08, 2012 at 03:08 AM
I'll give ol Ron Paul this, he completely buried Gingrich, just a shame for him that Newt was never going to win the nomination in the first place. RP might be the best of the GOP candidates but he'll probably never win either because nearly all right wingers today seem to have a hard on for Israel. They'll give Netanyahu more support than any of the current candidates we have in this country, even though he's pretty much hated everywhere else in the world including his own people. I love this country, it's a land where people think the moon-landing was fake but wrestling is real. Hell, it's a place where people think the moon-landing was fake and the bible is real. God bless America.
Posted By: Guest#8048 (Guest) on January 08, 2012 at 05:39 AM
Maybe they gave up because this is all just bad theater for the masses? No matter what happens nothing will ever get done, both sides will argue back and forth, and they will all still have jobs and collect paychecks. All of the Republicans who claim to be against "big government" are full of crap just based on the fact that they happily take their government funded paychecks and perks.
Posted By: Guest#2866 (Guest) on January 08, 2012 at 06:38 AM
@ G-Walla: Well, Obama did give the order to fuck up Bin Laden. That's close enough, right?
Posted By: The Great Capt. Smooth (Guest) on January 08, 2012 at 10:36 AM
You don't really get it Ashish. None of these other canidates have a hope in hell of taking a single vote from Romney.
They are all fighting for that same 60% to 70% of Republicans. Newt Gingrich would be better taking shots at Santorum or Perry than Romney. He can actually steal votes for himself there.
Romney is the moderate Republican choice. Everyone else is too far right to get that segment of voters support. This also makes Romney look favorable because he doesn't have to run too hard to get back to the center when the general election starts. Thats why higher up GOP insiders like him. He can beat Obama if it comes down to it. Otherwise you have to force one of these conservative screamers into the center right before election time.
Perry staying in the race probably did more to help Romney than anything else.
Posted By: J.J.T. (Guest) on January 08, 2012 at 11:50 AM
Alright let me try and break it down for you. There are two sides to the republican party. 25% consider themselves moderates and openly support big govt expenditures in pursuit of maximizing profits for the public companies and banks with most influence on the NASDAQ or in the credit inudustry. 5% are perpetually undecided but a shopping 70% of republicans embrace being "conservative". This massive, often ignored segment of the republican party are in favor of small gov't, minimal intervention in private or economic life, and a balanced budget. This 70% are vehemently against Romney, while they instead support the candidate deemed most classically conservative.
Posted By: Lucifer (Guest) on January 08, 2012 at 02:58 AM
No. That 70% favors intervention in private life so long as it is in ways they support -- banning abortion, keeping gay marriage illegal, keeping drugs illegal.
They also favor government spending itself into debt so long as its in ways they support -- military spending, funding for Israel, the war on drugs.
Posted By: Guest#7555 (Guest) on January 08, 2012 at 12:17 PM
Unless Tim Tebow runs we will not be voting for any GOP candidate.
The collection has been started...so when is the GOP savior going to end the football experiment and follow his true calling from god?
Posted By: GOP supporters (Guest) on January 08, 2012 at 12:55 PM
Wow Lucifer, you should have a column on this site
Posted By: Guest#3792 (Guest) on January 08, 2012 at 01:03 PM
Romney took a severe beating in todays NBC/Facebook debate. Update your brain matter cuz someday it may matterrrrrr
Posted By: Deltron (Guest) on January 08, 2012 at 01:59 PM
I would call legal opposition to non-health related abortions a public, not a private concern. I get your point about the general lack of civil liberties defenses coming from the conservative wing of the GOP. However, there is a logical fallacy and philosophical inconsistency in believing in economic liberty while denying personal liberty. Dr. Paul is making the case for this and recent poll numbers out of New Hampshire suggest that he is effectively swaying that confused republican conservative vote in his direction, while other polls all but confirm his pending dominance among independents and blue republicans.
Posted By: Lucifer (Guest) on January 08, 2012 at 04:20 PM
I would call legal opposition to non-health related abortions a public, not a private concern. I get your point about the general lack of civil liberties defenses coming from the conservative wing of the GOP. However, there is a logical fallacy and philosophical inconsistency in believing in economic liberty while denying personal liberty. Dr. Paul is making the case for this and recent poll numbers out of New Hampshire suggest that he is effectively swaying that confused republican conservative vote in his direction, while other polls all but confirm his pending dominance among independents and blue republicans.
Posted By: Lucifer (Guest) on January 08, 2012 at 04:20 PM
That is pretty funny bud. Pending "dominance" among independents? LOL
The guy was all over the news in Iowa and in the national spotlight and STILL came in 3rd.
He is one of those candidates who say some things that register with those who aren't really attuned to what is actually going on or the practicality of what he is suggesting we do.
All he ever says is "follow the constitution" well if we did that since 1776 we would never have any amendments because there would be no need for it because people who lived 350 years ago knew what is good for people in 2012....its a ridiculous and childish way to look at things.
Posted By: Dr. Strange (Guest) on January 08, 2012 at 07:08 PM
I would call legal opposition to non-health related abortions a public, not a private concern. I get your point about the general lack of civil liberties defenses coming from the conservative wing of the GOP. However, there is a logical fallacy and philosophical inconsistency in believing in economic liberty while denying personal liberty. Dr. Paul is making the case for this and recent poll numbers out of New Hampshire suggest that he is effectively swaying that confused republican conservative vote in his direction, while other polls all but confirm his pending dominance among independents and blue republicans.
Posted By: Lucifer (Guest) on January 08, 2012 at 04:20 PM
If your original statement is true, Ron Paul would be the easy front runner, as he has all the ideological purity they are asking for. What you miss is that the 70% isn't the homogenous block you claim it is, as evidenced by the lack of Paul support.
1) there is a strong block of religious fundamentalism driving a portion of that 70%. This is the real reason they will look at a Michelle Bachmann or Rick Santorum, even though Santorum (for example) matches NONE of the small government record you claim is part of the ideology.
This also explains why
2) Pro-military dogma also makes up a strong portion of that voting block. Military spending is off-the-table with a large portion of these voters, despite the claims of wanting to avoid "big government".
3) The minimal intervention in private life you claim is bunk not just on abortion grounds. The VEHEMENT opposition to gay marriage in a portion of the Republican party is evidence of this. So to would be the growing anti-contraception movement, which Santorum seems to be the first public supporter of.
Posted By: Guest#8886 (Guest) on January 08, 2012 at 07:19 PM
If your original statement is true, Ron Paul would be the easy front runner, as he has all the ideological purity they are asking for. What you miss is that the 70% isn't the homogenous block you claim it is, as evidenced by the lack of Paul support.
1) there is a strong block of religious fundamentalism driving a portion of that 70%. This is the real reason they will look at a Michelle Bachmann or Rick Santorum, even though Santorum (for example) matches NONE of the small government record you claim is part of the ideology.
This also explains why
2) Pro-military dogma also makes up a strong portion of that voting block. Military spending is off-the-table with a large portion of these voters, despite the claims of wanting to avoid "big government".
3) The minimal intervention in private life you claim is bunk not just on abortion grounds. The VEHEMENT opposition to gay marriage in a portion of the Republican party is evidence of this. So to would be the growing anti-contraception movement, which Santorum seems to be the first public supporter of.
Posted By: Guest#8886 (Guest) on January 08, 2012 at 07:19 PM
THIS ^^^
Posted By: Guest#6585 (Guest) on January 09, 2012 at 08:22 AM
STAY CURRENT