In the immediate post-debate analysis, EVERYONE (and this means the lefitsts of CNN, as well as more conservatie commentators, agreed that Rick Santorum won tonight's debate on SUBSTANCE. The ONLY 'knowck" (aside from the terrible Greta van Susteren ont he unfair and unbalanced network--another article) abainst Rick Santourum is that people don't hink he can win, and therefore he has NO MMNEY ( to speak of).
Santorum handed Romney's head to him over RomneyCare tonight. Santorum actually got Romney to give the SAME "defense" of the individual mandate in RomneyCare that Obama gives for ObamaCare. In fact, Romney's "defense" was the SAME right down the line, INCLUDING Romney's assertion that it is NOT a "government", top-down program which encurages people to PAY A FINE rahter than be insured (since they basically have insurance ANYWAY). I agree with Romney that states have the RIGHT to adoopt RomneyCare, while the Federal Government has no Constitutional right to adoopt ObamaCare. However, I am the last ture federalist in America. I guarantee yu that ROMNEY....................................................................sorry, on the flooor laughing/crying.......is not a true "federalist". Does Romney faovr FEDERAL "tort reform" on the SATATE issue of medical malpractice? Of course he does, because Rmney no more turly believes in federaism than he trly believes in free markets (note Romney faovred the BAILUTS, as Santroum aslo ponted out, and has FLIRTED in the past with "Cap and Trade" and "global warming').
No. Rick Santorum won this deate. And I am sure, as I waas not totally sure on Monday night, that I am not letting myu own endorsement of Santorum influence my opinion As I said, EVERYONE seems to have recognized that Santroum WON on substance. Most simply don't bvelieve it matters. And I cant' honestly tell you that Santourm is suddenly going to chllenge for the nomination. It stil seems a longshot, because Snatorum is scoring iwith SUBSTANCE, and not FALSHY SOUND BITES lke Newt Gingrich. It may be an indictment of the public that FLASHY moments can overcome solid dconservatrtive substance, even as the terrible GOP ESTABLISHMENT controls the ultimate nominee with MONEY (and more than money, as the media either ignores someone like Santorum or cooperates to TEAR DONW any 'nonestalbishment" candidate). Santorum has never "cught fire", despite his winin Iowa. He is not entirely without fault here, as he needed to SHARPEN his message earlier away from the social issue "box" that the MEIDA has tried to paint him into (with to mcuh of his own cooperation). No, I hhave NO problem with Santorum's views on "social issues". I jsut think he desperately needed, EARLLY, to avid being "labeled" the "social issue candidate". It may hae won him Iowa, but cost him any chance at the nomination.
Ah. Romney and Gingrich. UNIMPRESSIVE. I actauly think the media, including the DISHONEST Wolf Blitzer (see previous article), have deliberately set out to "rein in" Gingrich's chance for "South carolina" momnents. Gingrich is not getting the kind of questions he can knockout of the park, for the most part, and ROMNEY is deliberately trying to defelct Gingrich's debate points with overbearing ATTACKS. This put s Gingrich on the defensive, when he desperately needs to be on the attack. Gingrich had good moments tonight. He actually gotoff a number of good "one-liners", and it was ROMNEY who SABOTAGED what was really a good Gingrich moment with Wolf Blitzer. Sure, this was GOOD tactics by Romney, to keep Gingrich from getting credit once again for knockng down the media (as they should be knocked down).
But Romney. Romney was obviusly, as a matter of TACTICS, much more "energized" tonigh--more "apssionate"--rather than his previous "steady", "calm", "above-the-fray" approach. He evidently even has a new debate coach. That probably explains why Romney was UP AND DOWN tonight. No, Romney was NOT "steady". He made GAFFES. He was really unble to handle Santorum on RomneyCare. He was not taht good on illegal immigration--feeding my suspicion that Romney is "squishy" on the issue--as Romney tirried to say (at the SAME TIME, just like Obama) that he was NOT proposing that we deport grandmothers, but tath he was insisting that the laws be enforced. Not convincnig. Then there was Romney basically lalying everything ooff on the trustee of the "blind trust". However, that was not the major GAFFE. Romney DENIED that he was running a VICIOUS ad in Florida saing that Gingrich had referred to Spanish speaking people as "in the ghetto" (or something like this). This is Romney as HYPCRITE, as Romney's positoin on ENGLISH is basically the SAME as Gingrich, and all Gingrich had done was say that Englush needs to be taubht to everyone in this country. Agian, that is ROMNEY'S position. Worse, Romney DENIED that he knew anything about the ad. Then Wol Blitzer said lthat the ad had been CHECKED, and that Romney was on the ad saing that he "approved this ad". That is bad eenough. But then Romney, when congronted, fell back on the OLD ROMNEY--demanding to kninow whether Newt Ginrich had "said' something like what the ad said he said, even if out of ocntgext. Nope. Won't wash. That was a TRuLYU BAD moment for Rmoney. It would have been even wrose if the media ddi not seem to be out to COVER for Romney, until he comes up against Obama (when this kind of bobbing and disonest weaving wil be CRUCIFIED, ven as Obama gaets the "pass" Romney is now partially receiving). I give Wolf Blitzer credit for at least calling Romney on the attempt to say he was nto even responsible for the ad. But how BAD does Romney look to not beven be aware--to listen to him--of what was in the add, and then to try to DEFEND the ad Romney says he has not even seen. Nope. Not defensible.. And a MAJOR GAFFE. Against Obama, it would be FATAL.
No, Romney was not impressive. The best you can say is that he seems to be LEARNING to be more "energized". But, again, he could nto handle Santorum, and--overall--he id no better than a DRAW with Gingrich (subject ot the 'spin" helng it appear better for Romney). As the real frontrunner, it is probably right that a DRAW for Romey, who has control of the ad wars, is really a "win". It may well win him Florida. Yet, Gingrich actually gave a good answer--more than one, actually--on KNOWING about isssues in Florida. Romney gave no such answer. No, I don't thinkRomney actually "beat" Gingrich, except that Gingrich did not deliber the kind of "win" that propelled him in South Carolina. Unless media in Florida hammer Romney over being out of touch with Florida, I do expect that the debate hurt the chacnes of Gignrich to win Florida. Gingrich does not have the MONEY (or overall estalbishment support) to DRAW debates. But his problem is probably more MONDAY--despite thaqt being a snnozer--than tonight. Gingrich gained NOTHING on Monday, and set himself up for needing too mcuh tonight. He was like a basketball player hwo cannot "et his own shot". Gingirhc seemed ot need OPENINGS to really deliver "xingers", and cold nto MAKE his own operings. That may be ultimately ftal to a man almost basing his campaign on his debaing ability.
I repeat this blog's endorsement of Rick Santourm, wihout bving honestly able to say that he has much of a chance for the nomination. Too bad. I will vote for him in Texas, if he is still in the race. Otherwise, Iwill voete for Ron Paul (who WILL still be in the race) .
P.S No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment