Endgame assessment:
I give the debate to Newt (and so does Larry Sabato), who was aggressive without being offensive, and once again scored the line of the night about Romney “pious baloney.”
But, that said, I don’t think much damage was done to Romney. The upside for Newt is that there was mention at the end of the upcoming 27-minute pro-Newt SuperPAC movie on Bain, lots of free advertising.
This was very strong debate for Perry, leaving one to wonder once again what could have been.
The loser was Santorum. He did well in the debate, but if his challenge was to become the main challenger to Romney, he didn’t succeed. Newt, Perry and even Huntsman also had strong performances.
At the fourth break: Strong showings by Perry (Obama is a socialist, not afraid to say it), Huntsman (finally a presence), to lesser extent News and Santorum.
At the third break: Winner, no one. Loser, Newt. I don’t think he was asked a single question, got no air time at all the entire segment.
At the second break: Winner Perry. He finally got to answer a question at the end and was very strong that Republicans in Washinton are part of the problem. Santorum went after Ron Paul pretty consistently: “All the things Republicans like about him he can’t accomplish, and all the things he can accomplish are the things we worry about.” (paraphrase) Santorum took credit for welfare reform but Gregory didn’t come back to Newt. Newt needs to find a way to take Santorum on on the issue.
At the first break: Big time win for Newt, and to some extent, Santorum. Newt and Santorum hit Romney very hard on Romney’s electability problem, not being able to articulate conservative message in credible way. Since David Gregory set up the question, it didn’t seem mean spirited. Whey didn’t they do this last night?
Line of the morning so far, when Santorum said Romney wimped out (my term) in not running for reelection as Governor, Romney said he never intended to be a long term politician. Newt hit back that its a bunch of pious baloney, that Romney has been running for office for 20 years..
————————-
It start’s at 9 a.m. Eastern. Yes, that’s no a joke.
I have not even had time to write up my morning after thoughts about last night’s debate.
I’ll do what I did last night, give my assessments at the breaks, instead of trying to catelog what everyone said. If I can avoid spilling coffee, I’ll try to pull tweets of the morning, assuming anyone actually is watching.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
coffee is critical sir, you make sure you protect it at all costs; we will survive 🙂
Someone needs to wipe that self-righteous smirk of David Gregory’s face. What an insufferable jerk.
Missed it (so to speak).
No air time for Newt? I wonder why that is?
[…] that want a preview can sneak over to the Professor’s place and read what the professor thinks thus far. Gateway Pundit is on the job as well. Some of our commenters like a jump on us as well and given us […]
NBC Stooge: “Your party’s candidate in 2008 said Barack Obama is a patriot…”
Perry: “You mean the guy who lost? Yeah, I’ll listen to him.”
Ron Paul: “Entitlements are not Rights.”
Bravo!
Excellent answer by Santorum on nuclear Iran. Paraphrase: These people believe in death, the Soviets didn’t.
Romney claims he didn’t see the attack ad against Gingrich, then goes on to list the contents of the ad.
Ron Paul: Use the bully pulpit to defend Liberty.
Bravo!
Overall Romney looked weak and jittery to me. A taste of what is to come should he be the one to fall under the withering onslaught from the media and Obama’s camp (yeah, I know – one and the same) during the general.
It’s clear he’ll fold like a pressboard card table. And the conservative base won’t be there to push back or prop him up.
Sort of like McCain without Palin.
Grim.
ThomasD, Romney is McCain II. The media will not lay a glove on him, just like they didn’t with McCain, and even go so far as to sing his praises. Remember when the NYSlimes came out and said that McCain was the most “electable” of the bunch in 2008? Well, just like the LSM did with McCain the minute he took the nomination, the press will turn on Romney with the vengence of Attilla the Hun. And Romney won’t know what hit him.
Exactly. What the MSM wants is for Obama to face the guy who lost to the guy who said we had nothing to fear with an Obama presidency.
I think I am going to start praying for a plot twist in this election…
The only thing more perverse than a debate at 9 am on a Sunday is that many of you watched it. You are some sick, sick people. Now go back to bed and think about what you’ve done.
With jobs being the foremost issue on the minds of Americans, MoveOn.org’s ad against Romney is just a sample of things to come. Just wait until the opposition starts running ads talking about how Bain Capital was bailed out by the federal government who had to pay up for retirement benefits for one of the companies it took over. Ouch!
But like 2008, when the LSM refused to lay a hand on McCain, they are now doing the same with Mittens. But like 2008, when McCain took the nomination, the LSM went after McCain with a vengence, and they will do the same to Mittens. There is just TOO much juicy history with Mitt for them not to.
Others have said this and it’s not a new thought but can someone tell me why all these debates’ moderators have been mostly liberal newsreaders? The majority of whom have provable connections to the Democrat party on stations that are provably pro-Obama?
Why do(have) the candidates allow(ed) the enemies of their supposed political philosophy, or at least their antagonists, to frame the debates and thus highlight or hide the best or the worst of THEIR selected targets?
WE ARE LETTING OUR OPPONENTS SELECT OUR CANDIDATE AND FRAME THE DEBATE. WHY WHY WHY?
Who is responsible for this massive strategic failure?
I’m with you, but who from the conservative/libertarian side has stepped up to fund and run a debate? It’s been done, but not much.
Heritage Foundation? Cato Institute? National Rifle Association? American Enterprise Institute? National Taxpayers Union? National Review? Etc.
I see; so Newt takes one segment of the debate but Perry takes two out of the four and Newt is the winner?
Explain that to those of us who support both Perry and Newt, Professor. Or have you discounted Perry (what could have been) to the point where all objectivity is thrown to the wind?
Kind of like the Super Bowl – you can easily win two, even three, quarters but still lose based on the final (total) score. Or like boxing matches (rounds/points) or golf(holes/round).
(Not that I necessarily agree with the assessment, just that it is possible.)
FWIW I think Perry could have won the thing had he been given remotely the amount of time Romney was given.
ThomasD, I fully understand the football reference, but this is not football. This is like blackjack. The guy with two aces wins.
A week ago I was watching Megan Kelly (out of sheer desparation tired of pirate/global warming/end of the earth shows) and she flashed up a collage of the GOP candidates. Six on top and six on the bottom in full screen. The candidates show were Romney, Santorum, Bachmann, Gingrich, Paul and Huntsman. Nope, no Perry. She went on to talk about all six of the pictured candidates. Nope, no Perry.
We conservatives flocked to Fox because we thought that finally we had a voice in the media. But Fox has done everything it can to totally ignore Governor Perry. While Fox was reporting on Santorum’s Iowa “meet and greet” events and saying how he was climbing in the polls, other sources were reporting how Santorum couldn’t even fill a small bar and the owner of the bar had to turn the Iowa game off just so Santorum could work a crowd. In one event, Santorum drew 75 reporters and less than a dozen supporters. All the while Rick Perry was packing houses with people standing outside just to try to hear what he was saying. Did Fox report that? Hell, no.
You see, Perry is just a “cowboy” to the Beltway elites who have already picked their candidate; Mitt Romney. Now you can wait for them to bash Newt for going after Romney and his Bain Capital history, just as the talking heads said Perry was “mean” to go after Romney’s failure to enforce immigration laws. BUT GOOD FOR NEWT.
How much have you heard anyone who is supposed to be on the conservative side talk about the successes of Rick Perry in Texas? Or the fact that Bobby Jindal is now following the Perry philosophy when it comes to job creation and has made Louisiana the second in the nation in job creation? Or how Scott Walker has also done the same? John Kacich? Yep, using the Perry model and creating jobs in Ohio.
Don’t get me wrong; I have met Newt on a number of occassions and have found him personable and easy to talk to. His wife, Kallista, is an absolute joy to talk to as she is soooooooooooo nice. And I would vote for Newt if he is on the ballot in November. But if we are looking for warts, and every candidate has them, I pick the guy with the fewest, and that is Rick Perry.
There is a philosophy behind the media (Fox) ignoring Rick Perry. They have nothing to go after him on except that he is not a contender for the Academy Award for performance. When 1,000 people a week move to a state that provides them with employment opportunities, you cannot dispute that record, so you ignore it.
Just as a reminder, Larry Sabato is a strong Democrat. Just saying……………..
Weak, jittery, flopflopping, etc. only begin to describe Romney’s breathy stammering and yammering. This is what BS sounds like.
When is the GOP gonna learn to have debates with Pro-conservative moderators and in friendlier confines?
Oh, that’s right, GOP.
Nevermind.
“This was very strong debate for Perry, leaving one to wonder once again what could have been.”
I’m a firm believer of “it ain’t over ’til it’s over*,” So I’ll keep my fingers crossed.
*(Which may, of course, come in South Carolina, but I hope not. He’s been a great governor for Texas and has the right governing philosophy)
No, no, no, Phineas, you don’t understand. Perry is not a player (just as the Democrats in the Texas legislature) and we MUST have someone who knows the ropes of D.C. even if they have sold us out before, time and time again.
Texas has 155 delegates & our primary is in April.
Perry is on the ballot in Indiana,Arizona, Illinois, Ohio, Vermont and Washington, D.C.
Santorum might miss some critical ballot deadlines.
90 minute debate, 4 minutes for Ron Paul. And he still was the only one making any sense.
Polls say he’ll take 2nd in NH. Intrade says its almost certain.
4 minutes. I guess the liberal left press fears most what Ron Paul has to say. They should.
Are you kidding? The Liberal Left agrees most with what Paul has to say – which is why he is expected to be so strong in open registration locations.
Ron Paul will never get elected, that’s clear. But it would be interesting to watch if he did – Republicans and Conservative-leaning Independents would mostly stay home while the vote would come down to who Dems prefer most, Obama or Paul.
Blacks and Hispanics would vote Obama, clearly, since Paul is arguably the racist they try to claim we all are. But Students and activists would largely go Paul because they would be able to legally be junkies and have no fear what so ever of him doing anything militarily.
You’re simply an idiot. Congrats on that.
“A REAL “black swan event” – an event that deviates by 180 degrees from what is “normally expected” – would be a political debate over root causes and basic principles.
The great merit of Ron Paul – and the great service he is giving to his own and every other nation – is the fact that he is doing everything he can to raise the debate to that level. That makes Dr Paul a unique politician, a man who tells people what most of them DON’T want to hear or understand. Or at least they don’t think they want to understand it.
Dr Paul’s great and merited attractiveness to a growing number of admirers has a very simple source. He is that rarest of creatures – a FREE man.
He is beholden to nobody. He has developed his ideas and his convictions over a long and fruitful life of independent thinking. He does not compromise. He homes in on the fundamental issue and principle of any political issue and serves it up without salt or other “seasoning”.
He says what he means and he means what he says. He is the living embodiment of the “dream” that most Americans have long since given up on as they saw it slip further and further beyond their grasp.”
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/ron-paul-2012s-black-swan
…and he is liked most by Liberals and Liberal Leaning Independents, while Conservatives almost outright reject him.
You cant change that, it’s just fact.
Sadly, you try to claim the opposite though, and attack those who point out your errors – standing up to the Paulbot traditions and standards, I guess; but its the reason no one takes any of you fools seriously as well…
Ron Paul doesn’t advance anything other then turning people off of the Republican Party. He is the one Dems want to highlight when they are fearful the “lunatic, far-right, anti all-Government nutcase” narrative isn’t sticking enough for their liking.
Ron Paul appeals to the same half-brain, easily duped and mislead, college kids that Communists always try to take advantage of. Otherwise, no one thinks he is anything other then a over-zealous conspiracy nut with plenty of hypocritical statements, idiotic Anti-American best-interest ideas and way too much public exposure.
scottinwisconsin, really? I was beginning to think it was the Crazy Old Uncle Ron Paul Show.
Now, care to explain to all us Ron Paul naysayers Paul’s long association with people like Lew Rockwell, Murray Rothbard and Alex Jones?
Ronn Paul spoke for less than 4 minutes out of 90. Go to Youtube and count it out. Outrageous for the #2 in the polls in that state.
And the rest needs no explanation. You may not agree with Alex Jones’ analysis of the dangers of big government, and the causes of our problems (I tend to), but why would anyone have explain agreeing with a fine Libertarian like Murray Rothbard?
Someone, once, told you that those 3 people are EVIL, so you simply accept that. Rather than read “The Essential Rothbard”, which non-socialists would mostly embrace, you prefer to smugly throw out names, as if that wins the debate. It doesn’t.
Wise up. You believe in ALL the wrong people.
You don’t read the original sources, and you’re smugly self-satified with your “conservatives,” who never fail to fail. How’s that working out for you?
I think ya hit a nerve there, retire05.
There have been 9 debates since Perry’s Oops! moment and he’s been strong in every one of them.
He was the only candidate to call out Obama as a socialist,10th amendment,Right to Work Legislation as it is tied to economic turn around and draw a distinction between himself and DC dysfunction.
Newt was a lot better this morning.
Gig Em’
Perry 2012
Good to see your enthusiasm here and not only at Hot Air!
Go Perry!
[…] Takeouts Posted on January 8, 2012 1:30 pm by Bill Quick » Meet the Press Debate – Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion I give the debate to Newt (and so does Larry Sabato), who was aggressive without being offensive, […]
Romney is Obama’s brother from another mother.
Newt is the man that keeps Obama up at night.
Gingrich 2012!!!
Just finished watching the whole debate online. Much better then ABC last night. Thought Perry was strong, Newt was okay (but came across a bit cranky when taking on Romney PAC ads,) Romney seemd “testy” when Newt took him on, Santorum scored some points taking on Romney’s electability, and Paul and Huntsman were their normal annoying selves. Overall a much better debate than last night, but I don’t know how many people watched it live, at that tme of the morning. Certainly not the rank and file, who are not politiholics. (like us)