First Thoughts: Last night's winners and losers
msnbc.com
June 14, 2011
Last night’s debate winners: Romney, Bachmann, and the Tea Party… Last night’s losers: Pawlenty, Gingrich, and anyone who wanted a serious, substantive conversation on the economy…
By NBC’s Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, Domenico Montanaro, and Ali Weinberg
*** Last night’s winners and losers: Although last night’s GOP presidential debate in New Hampshire turned out to be standard fare for an early debate -- with no fireworks and no heated exchanges -- we learned some things. One, Michele Bachmann announced she filed her paperwork to run for president (when is the last time that’s happened at a presidential debate? That'll get copied in 2016, mark our words). Two, having previous presidential debating experience like Mitt Romney had certainly helps (though it didn’t end up benefiting John Edwards in ’08 in the long run, just at the very early debates). Three, if you try to pick a fight the day before the debate, as Tim Pawlenty did, you better follow through (or face the post-game consequences). And four, the debate was a contest to prove who was the most anti-Obama, anti-government, and most pro-Tea Party (“Anyone on this stage would be a better president than Obama,” Romney said). Now on to last night’s winners and losers…
*** Practice makes perfect for Romney: The clearest individual winner was Romney. He performed as well as he did at any other debate in 2007-2008, which just goes to prove that practice makes perfect. He was confident and engaged. What’s more, he emerged relatively unscathed -- receiving only fingernail scratches from Rick Santorum (on his authenticity on abortion) and Pawlenty (more on that below). Yet as National Journal’s Reinhard writes, he probably won’t get off as easily in upcoming debates. Perhaps most important for Romney, his message was better tailored to independent voters than the rest of the field (though it was striking that he decided not to criticize Obama’s views on NASA/space, given the industry’s importance in Florida). His most puzzling comment came when he seemed to argue against the Bush Doctrine regarding military involvement in places like Iraq and Afghanistan: "I also think we've learned that our troops shouldn’t go off and try to fight a war of independence for another nation -- only the Afghanis can win Afghanistan's independence from the Taliban." Does he believe this about Iraq as well? If so, we didn’t hear that in ’07-’08. Also, Romney ducked answering the debt-ceiling question and no one followed up on it.
*** Bachmann: The most credible anti-Romney candidate? Another winner was Bachmann, who likely will continue to dominate the anti-Obama one-liners and rhetoric throughout the debate season. As soon as she appeared on stage and as soon as she announced that she filed her paperwork to run for president, the Herman Cain Experiment seemed to be over. She stumbled on the gay marriage answer and muddled her facts on a few issues, but her supporters won't care about that. Just from watching last night’s debate, she has the potential to be the most credible anti-Romney in the GOP field, especially considering the order of the contests with Iowa first. Of course, that’s what Team Romney is hoping for. Indeed, last night’s debate played out almost exactly how we saw it playing out last week -- Bachmann dominated the process of the debate and allowed Romney to "win" it.
*** We’re all Tea Partiers now: The other big winner was the Tea Party. Indeed, it sounded like all the candidates -- even Romney -- were reading off the Dick Armey/FreedomWorks/Americans for Prosperity script. So many of last night’s answers were about what the government SHOULDN’T be doing rather than what it SHOULD be doing (other than get out of the way). But that rhetoric raises this question: If the federal government should stay out of the way -- and if the 10th Amendment is so cherished -- why run for president? Why not stay governor of Massachusetts or Minnesota? One person who struggled a tad on the 10th Amendment talking point was Rick Santorum, even though he's fully embraced much of the economic rhetoric. After all, it’s hard to legislate morality as Santorum wants to do when the GOP sounds more and more like the Libertarian Party. And that has to bring a smile to Ron Paul’s face. Bachmann is as much a social conservative as Santorum in her voting record, but notice her consistency on the 10th Amendment when it comes to gay marriage -- a distinction from Santorum. Though, it was notable how she had to fix her answer three times.
*** The biggest loser: Pawlenty: If there was one big loser last night, it was Pawlenty. Coming into the debate, no one raised the prospect of attacking Romney more than he did (with his “ObamneyCare” line). But when Pawlenty got into the batter's box, he didn't even swing; in fact, he struck out looking. After the debate in the spin room, his campaign dismissed that criticism, saying that Pawlenty didn’t give the answer news outlets were hoping he’d give. But there’s one problem with that explanation: It was the Pawlenty campaign that called SO MUCH attention and promotion to the candidate’s dig at Romney before the debate. Either the candidate doesn't agree with his advisers on strategy or the campaign doesn't agree on strategy; either way, that's not a sign of a winning campaign. Seven months from now, Pawlenty could very well end up regretting this missed opportunity. And it underscores the early challenge for Pawlenty: The Minnesota Nice Guy wants to be the tough-talking Tea Party conservative, but he personally just may not be comfortable in that role.
Article continues: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/06/14/6856039-first-thoughts-last-nights-winners-and-losers
Gold is $1,581/oz today. When it hits $2,000, it will be up 26.5%. Let's see how long that takes. - De 3/11/2013 - ANSWER: 7 Years, 5 Months
| 