GOP presidential debate: Winners and Losers
AP
Updated Feb. 23, 9 a.m. ET
The 20th (and maybe final) debate of the Republican presidential battle is in the books, which means it's time to look at who had a good night - and who didn't.
Losers:
Rick Santorum: The former Pennsylvania senator came into Wednesday night's debate riding high, having emerged from a long period as an also ran to rise to the top of national polls. Santorum has been great in many of the debates in the past, getting clean shots at his rivals and casting himself as the most conservative candidate in a race defined by primary voters looking for an authentic conservative.
So it's something of a shock how badly he stumbled Wednesday night. Santorum was on defense all evening, bumbling and stumbling when pressed on his decision to support former Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter, the Title X law of 1970 that aims to provide contraceptives to those who cannot afford them and the No Child Left Behind, the 2001 law giving a greater role for the federal government in education policy. On NCLB, he essentially said that he voted against his conscience on order to help his party since the law was a major priority for President George W. Bush. Santorum called the decision as taking "one for the team." It was a terrible strategy for a candidate whose entire campaign is built on his pure conservatism in opposition to Romney, and it made Santorum look like a hack Washington insider more interested in playing games than doing what is right.
Polls show Santorum in a tight race with Romney in Michigan, which holds its primary next Tuesday; a Romney loss there would be devastating and position Santorum as the frontrunner for the nomination. Tonight's debate was a chance for Santorum to show he was rising to the occasion, to showcase a vision and clarity of message that made him plausible as a successful general election candidate. Outside of a couple good moments, he failed.
Debate viewers: The first half of the two-hour debate got bogged down an impossible-to-follow battle over earmarks and how they work; it was both boring and relatively trivial, in light of the relatively small role earmarks play in the federal budget. Most of the candidates dodged a question on whether they support contraception and got away with it; they were asked, pointlessly, to describe themselves in one word (for the record, Ron Paul said "consistent," Santorum "courage," Romney "resolute" and Newt Gingrich "cheerful"); and they didn't get asked about immigration until the second hour, despite the fact that the debate was in Arizona, which (like Michigan) holds its primary next Tuesday. In addition, frankly, it was just a pretty boring faceoff; the fireworks were muted, and there was no YouTube moment like Rick Perry's infamous "oops." (Though Perry was in the audience, prompting one Twitter user to quip that he had just gotten through his first gaffe-free debate.) Perhaps it was because they were all seated, but the event too often resembled a panel discussion during which half the audience nods off.
Winners:
Mitt Romney: Romney wasn't amazing Wednesday night, but any loss for Santorum - who is now his chief roadblock to winning the nomination - is a win for him. Though he sometimes appeared prickly, Romney had done enough homework to defend himself and land some punches along the way. (One example: Romney's strong defense of his opposition to a government bailout of Detroit despite his support for a Wall Street bailout, which he topped off by noting that Santorum had backed airline and steel industry bailouts.) It wasn't a clear cut debate victory like the one Romney had over Gingrich after Gingrich win the South Carolina, but it might have been good enough to move the needle in his direction just enough to put him over the top on Tuesday.Newt Gingrich: Gingrich also wasn't at his best on Wednesday, but he got the job done. Gingrich managed to get in an attack at the "elite media" for what he said was not challenging President Obama for supporting "infanticide" - unsurprisingly a crowd pleaser, if not entirely accurate - and looked like the voice of reason after the endless earmarks battle, speaking clearly after Romney and Santorum babbled on interminably. That said, there were moments that make clear why polls show Gingrich to be one of the most unpopular politicians in the country; he looked downright condescending at times - at one point seeming to mouth "nice try" to Romney with a grin on his face - and also went over the top with rhetoric like "As long as you're America's enemy you're safe... the only people you've got to worry about is if you're an American ally." I guess nobody told Osama bin Laden.
Ron Paul: Paul came into the debate looking like an also ran - he's the only candidate yet to win a state - and while he's not going to get a huge boost out of his performance, he had some strong moments. He was the only candidate to offer a straight answer on contraception, saying pills "can't be blamed for the immorality of our society," and he didn't try to explain away his attacks on Santorum, instead unapologetically embracing the rhetoric in his ads. Paul also got in perhaps the best shot on Santorum of the night, seizing on Santorum's claim that politics is a "team sport" to argue that a politician's allegiance should be to their country and Constitution, not their party.
Barack Obama: None of the Republican candidates looked particularly presidential Wednesday evening; there was too much squabbling, and not enough of the sort of clear-eyed rhetoric and articulation of solutions that wins elections. In a number of the other debates, Romney was able to rise above the fray while his rivals battled it out, looking presidential in the process; with Santorum up nationally and Michigan around the corner, he couldn't do that Wednesday night, and he suffered as a result. It's good news for a president who is able to keep sharpening his message as his potential rivals weaken each other ahead of the bigger fight in November.
More from the debate:
Santorum fights charges he's a "fake" conservative
Republican candidates spar over congressional spending
GOP candidates blast Obama for birth control ruling
Republican candidates condemn auto bailout
Popular in Politics
- Obama prom pictures surface 126 Comments
- Is President Obama ending the war on terror? 258 Comments
- IRS' Lerner was asked to resign, refused: GOP Sen. 109 Comments
- Now, some unions upset over Obamacare
- IRS official Lois Lerner placed on leave 130 Comments
- Obama forgets to salute while boarding Marine One Play Video
- GOP Rep.: Obama elected because of Reagan's immigration reforms
- Rand Paul uses 2016 bully pulpit to push Obama on drones
Renewable energy makes positive strides every day as far as cost, efficiency and transformation into our major form of energy one day. Personally, I like building on the legacy of a sustainable energy solution that future generations will refine and enhance. A revolutionary new Solar Fuels Institute has set an ambitious goal to be a major and essential contributor to solving the world's energy
crisis within a decade. (http://telluridescience.org/sofi-brochure.pdf)
Since this is a collaboration between international scientists, this is totally private-funded and cannot take any government money!
=====
js2212: "Slow down there turbo, you sound like a Renewable Energy brochure."
=====
Hardly, especially since you're obviously biased against renewable energy like every other conservative, and in the same sentence above, I mentioned both renewable energy and OIL production!
We need ALL forms of energy in order for energy independence in the 21st century, so people like you need to set their biases aside, and leave the republican talking points to the fox/rush propagandists!
We're moving in the right direction for a change, and even have quadrupled the number of drilling rigs over the past 3 years, the first new nuclear plants since 1973 have been approved, domestic GAS and OIL production is increasing for the first time in decades, new installations of renewable energy has been steadily increasing over the past few years, and biofuel production is predicted to increase again in 2012. ALL GOOD AND ALL NEEDED!
You characterize the situation as "almost there", as if we could conceivably be self sufficient next year. That's not the case and will requires billions of spending and investment to get there. You suffer from the same problem as most fiscal liberals - you see the end but not the way to get there.
Hmmmmm.....it was you that mentioned "Nazis" for no other reason than political incitement, and then had the gall to exaggerate my thoughts of "moving in the right direction" towards energy independence as "next year." That's hardly the case, but after declining to levels not seen since the 1940's, U.S. crude production began rising again in 2009. Since the mid-80's, we actually saw consumption rise for 20 years from 15 MBD to 21 MBD, while our domestic supply went in the wrong direction, and our imports kept increasing to 60%. Our imports have dropped to 42% since our peak in 2006, but our consumption has also dropped even with many more vehicles on the road.
Of course you're highly biased against renewable energy like most conservatives, and it certainly is not a "silver bullet" to solve all of our energy problems overnight, but we're finally moving in the right direction with biofuels, synthetic fuels and higher efficiency.
Paint me with whatever broad brush you like, but the fact still remains that domestic OIL production is UP 11% under Obama and was DOWN 15% under bush -- no matter what the false rhetoric has been.
We had record amounts of biofuels produced in 2011, along with record amounts of biofuel exports:
http://business380.com/2011/12/23/iowa-ethanol-production-hits-record-on-growth-of-exports/
Should be interesting to see what happens to ethanol production and exports in 2012, since a 3-decades-long federal tax credit for ethanol expired at the end of last year. Fiscal conservatives joined liberal environmentalists to kill it, with help from a diverse coalition of outside groups.
Personally, I have high hopes for a breakthrough with the new Solar Fuels Institute (SOFI) and their ambitious goal to be a major and
essential contributor to solving the world's energy crisis within a decade. (http://telluridescience.org/sofi-brochure.pdf)
fxr60: "He wants to push green energy that is not perfected yet."
You sure have the republican talking points down pat, without realizing that renewable energy is growing leaps and bounds worldwide, and that domestic OIL production has been steadily increasing since 2009.
_______________________________________________________________________
Slow down there turbo, you sound like a Renewable Energy brochure. Our renewable energy industry is not able to keep pace with demand, renewable energy has doubled in price in the last year. If we were doing all that wonderfully, then supply should be outstripping demand and prices going down. Can't ignore the facts.
As far as oil goes, I have never understood this debate's existence. There is no debate. The world's consumption of oil, depending on who you talk to is around 76 million per day. US makes up 25% of that or 19 million. PER DAY. US production capabilities hover around 9 million. So don't go throwing any parades just yet - we need to more than double oil production just to keep pace with demand.
Slow down there conservatroll, and completely understand that your republican talking points are not even close to the truth, and trying to compare a 150-year old fossil fuel industry with a quite new renewable energy industry, is apples to kumquats!
Actually, lying about the cost of renewable energy does your "argument" no justice, since PV panels cost HALF what they did just 2 years ago, and continue to plummet with Chinese manufacturing and their government's subsidies, producing a huge installation industry in America with tens of thousands of jobs!
As far as increased domestic OIL production goes, we've cut our OIL imports down from 60% just 5 years ago to 42% in 2011, and now our #1 EXPORT is GASoline and other fuels to around the world. Natural GAS is at record LOW prices, helping fuel our manufacturing sector resurgence, and we should listen to Pickens and increase our usage of NG with CNG and LNG in vehicles, which would help to further decrease our declining consumption of OIL.
Instead of attacking me or our President over our energy policy, completely understand that it is a COMBINATION of ALL sources of energy that is needed which is exactly what Obama proposed in his SOTU speech last month, and well-past time to end our BIG OIL energy policy of the 20th century!
Just remember, renewable energy is just one part of the equation and not the "silver bullet," and many of us already understand that it takes the combination of fossil fuels, biofuels, nuclear and many types of renewable energy that will finally give us energy independence in the not-so-distant future!
You sure have the republican talking points down pat, without realizing that renewable energy is growing leaps and bounds worldwide, and that domestic OIL production has been steadily increasing since 2009.
Americans Gaining Energy Independence With U.S. as Top Producer
The U.S. is the closest it has been in almost 20 years to achieving energy self-sufficiency. Domestic oil output is the highest in eight years.
The result: The U.S. has reversed a two-decade-long decline in energy independence, increasing the proportion of demand met from domestic sources over the last six years to an estimated 81 percent through the first 10 months of 2011, according to data compiled by Bloomberg from the U.S. Department of Energy. That would be the highest level since 1992.
U.S. energy self-sufficiency has been steadily rising since 2005, when it hit a low of 70 percent, the data compiled by Bloomberg show. Domestic crude oil production rose 3.6 percent last year to an average 5.7 million barrels a day, the highest since 2003, according to the Energy Department.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-07/americans-gaining-energy-independence-with-u-s-as-top-producer.html
Rick's Religious Fanaticism
By MAUREEN DOWD
In a party always misty for bygone times bristling with ugly inequities, Santorum is successful because he's not ashamed to admit that he wants to take the country backward.
Virginia's Republican governor, Bob McDonnell, touted as a vice-presidential prospect, also wants to drag women back into a cave.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/22/opinion/dowd-ricks-religious-fanaticism.html?_r=1&ref=maureendowd
This is exactly true, and it's the Independents in the center that will decide the 2012 election, just like all the rest today!