Maybe the real debate should be about whether Republicans should bother to run at all with this set of candidates. In the meantime, we're seeing another bounce: a dive for Gingrich, a lift for Romney. Gingrich seems determined to self-destruct or, at best, not find himself on the other side of a real mess-up in Florida.
His strategy, like Mr. Romney’s a week earlier, perhaps looked good in the playbook: the initial polls after South Carolina had shown Mr. Gingrich surging to a lead in Florida, and perhaps Mr. Gingrich thought he could look more like a front-runner by adopting a less combative and more magnanimous approach.
But Republican voters, once more, did not react well: Mr. Gingrich has since lost considerable ground in the polls and now trails Mr. Romney in Florida. It is not necessarily clear that the debate was the only cause of this. Nevertheless, Mr. Gingrich entered Thursday evening trailing Mr. Romney in the polls and needing a win in the second debate.
Instead, Mr. Gingrich seemed to be playing for a draw. ...Nate Silver, NYT
Newt is "plummeting" at InTrade. Romney has a new debate coach. Santorum is back in view... ho hum.
Wait! This is interesting:
The path forward would not be easy for Mr. Santorum, especially given that he would be at something of a delegate deficit to Mr. Romney. But Mr. Santorum could focus on two Midwestern states that are key in the general election — Michigan, which votes on Feb. 28, and Ohio, which votes on March 6. If there is truly an appetite for a “not Romney” candidate, then a state like Ohio would provide as good a testing ground as any. ...Nate Silver
___
The Washington Post examines just how much the conservative establishment dislikes Newt Gingrich. Don't they?
With Gingrich’s win last week in South Carolina and strong prospects in Florida’s primary, conservative figures and media outlets have been amping up their attacks on a presidential candidate they deem erratic and a potential disaster for the Republican Party. ...WaPo
Scary! Bob Dole (he lives!) pops up in Kansas with his opinion. The National Review gets in there, too.
Gingrich was the subject of twin hits Thursday by National Review, the bible of conservative thought founded by William F. Buckley Jr. The biweekly magazine, which has inveighed against Gingrich for weeks, published a blistering antiGingrich statement on its Web site by former senator Bob Dole (Kan.) and a scathing commentary by former Ronald Reagan aide Elliott Abrams.
“If Gingrich is the nominee it will have an adverse impact on Republican candidates running for county, state, and federal offices,” wrote Dole, who supports former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney. “Hardly anyone who served with Newt in Congress has endorsed him and that fact speaks for itself.” The National Review said the statement came from the Romney campaign. ...WaPo
There are an awful lot of old Republicans who get mentions in this report, Republicans I thought (hoped?) had gone to Republican heaven (green lawns trimmed by illegals, iPads with archived Reagan speeches). Elliott Abrams, for crying out loud -- isn't he in prison? Tom DeLay? Ditto?
___
I've been waiting for the real Mitt -- the one who set up the original "Obamacare" system in Massachusetts -- to stand up and take credit for it, even in the face of his party's intransigence. He seemed to do so in last night's debate. Harold Meyerson notices:
The most interesting moment in the debate, though, came when Romney sought to defend the Massachusetts health insurance plan he signed into law against Rick Santorum’s charges that it was simply a one-state version of the national law signed by President Obama. In replying, Romney delivered a very effective defense of the universal mandate, pointing out how it was needed to offset the costs to the public of health care for the uninsured. That, as Santorum very effectively argued, is precisely the case for Obamacare, which Romney, inadvertently, defended more articulately tonight than Obama sometimes has. Romney only lapsed into his accustomed inarticulateness when he sought to contrast Obama’s law with his own. Santorum is right: Romney probably couldn’t make a plausible attack against Obamacare should he be the nominee.
But Romney’s prospects of becoming the nominee likely improved as a result of his debate performance tonight. With new polls showing that Gingrich’s momentum in Florida may have slowed, or even begun running in reverse, Romney’s forcing Gingrich onto the defensive and keeping him there stripped from the former Speaker his last chance to do his inimitable slash-and-burn before Florida Republicans go to the polls. By the standard of getting the nomination, a good night for Romney. By the standard of showing himself capable of taking on Obama on health-care reform, not so hot. ...WaPo
Which makes the prospect of candidate Romney going head-to-head against President Obama in a debate even more interesting.
___
The Hill's report on the mini-healthcare debate last night has a nice typo which may suggest where the debate is going:
Former Sen. Rick Santorum (Penn.) hit Romney over a plan that has many similarities to President Obama’s Affordable Care Act, often refered to by Republicans as "Obamacare."
Romney defended his plan on the state level, but called Obama’s healthcare law “bad medicine” and vowed to repel [sic] it as president.
“We cannot give the issue of healthcare away in this election,” Santorum charged during his lengthy attack on Romney. ...The Hill
Just diss it. Not repeal it. Gotcha, Mitt.
Comments