CNN Atlanta debate called off to effectively thwart Newt

A planned March 1 debate of Republican presidential candidates in Atlanta was cancelled on Thursday after Mitt Romney and Ron Paul dropped out of it and the campaign for Rick Santorum expressed doubt he would attend.

The CNN-sponsored debate was scheduled to take place in Newt Gingrich’s home state of Georgia. Of the four remaining candidates for the Republican presidential nomination, only Gingrich, who has generally done well in the debates, had definitely been scheduled to attend.

“Without full participation of all four candidates, CNN will not move forward with the Super Tuesday debate. However, next week, CNN and the Arizona Republican Party will host all four leading contenders for the GOP nomination. That debate will be held in Mesa, Arizona on February 22 and will be moderated by CNN’s John King.”

The Republican state-by-state campaign to seek a challenger to Democratic President Barack Obama in November’s election has been heavily reliant on debates.

Romney was the first candidate to cancel, citing scheduling conflicts. Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul gave the official explanation in a statement.

“Governor Romney will be spending a lot of time campaigning in Georgia and Ohio ahead of Super Tuesday. With eight other states voting on March 6th, we will be campaigning in other parts of the country and unable to schedule the CNN Georgia debate. We have participated in 20 debates, including 8 from CNN.”

Paul and Santorum quickly followed suit. Paul spokesman said that Paul would be skipping the debate to “focus on a bunch of western caucuses.” The decision by Paul doesn’t surprise anyone and Paul aim is to build a movement in this race, not win the presidential nomination however, a source also said that Santorum would “likely skip,” a decision he confirmed later last night in an interview with Greta Van Susteren.

That left Newt Gingrich all alone and apparently ticked off. The debate, which was set to take place in Atlanta just a few days before Super Tuesday, could have given a much-needed bump to the floundering Gingrich campaign.

After Romney’s announcement, Gingrich spokesman R.C. Hammond tweeted, “Romney spits in Georgia’s face and cancels Atlanta debate appearance.”

Later, he tweeted, “If (Romney) won’t stand up and debate his GOP competitors how will he face President Obama?” Speaker Gingrich definitely has a point and it is clear that Romney and Santorum are now trying to prevent a Newt resurgence. At least when speaker Gingrich was leading in the polls he wasn’t afraid to debate, it is yet another signal of how the current two poll leading candidates, don’t have the confidence or courage to step up to the plate.

CNN Debate Fact summary by FACTCHECK.ORG

 

Summary

Facts were sometimes used as blunt instruments as the four remaining GOP presidential candidates hammered away at each other in the last debate before Saturday’s South Carolina primary.

• Santorum and Romney tangled on the Massachusetts health care law. Santorum wrongly claimed it was a “government-run” program. Romney erred when he said everybody was covered by private insurance, ignoring Medicare and his own expansion of Medicaid.
• Santorum also fouled up when he claimed the state has “the highest health insurance premiums of any state in the country.” Seven states and Washington, D.C., were higher in 2010, the most recent year for which figures are available.
• Gingrich claimed Romney appointees “funded” an abortion clinic. The truth is that an autonomous state agency approved a tax-exempt loan — not direct taxpayer funding — and Romney said he wasn’t aware until after he left office.
• Gingrich, slamming Jimmy Carter, said “unemployment went to 10.8 percent.” It did — nearly two years after Ronald Reagan took office. But it never exceeded 7.8 percent under Carter.
• Gingrich claimed that “none” of the ideas on the website of his Center for Health Transformation resemble Obama’s program. Actually, we found a call there for an individual mandate, which Gingrich himself repeated as recently as last May.
• Romney slammed Gingrich’s claim to have “helped” Reagan create jobs, saying Reagan mentioned Gingrich only once in his published diaries. That’s true. Reagan wrote that the young congressman’s 1983 suggestion to freeze spending “would cripple our defense program,” and he rejected it.
• Ron Paul, a physician, claimed medicine “worked rather well” in the early 1960s. That was before Medicare, when in fact rising health care costs were forcing many of the elderly onto public assistance or charity care.

Analysis

They met in Charleston, only hours after Texas Gov. Rick Perry announced he was suspending his campaign and endorsing former House Speaker Newt Gingrich.

Romney vs. Santorum: Massachusetts Health Care

Former Sen. Rick Santorum and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney both strayed from the facts at times as Santorum tried to bolster his claim that Romney’s health care law was a “disaster,” and Romney fought back saying Santorum’s claims were “wrong.” We’ll take that spirited exchange point by point:

Santorum wrong on “government-run” health care: Santorum called the law “a government-run health care system.” That’s not true. Like the federal law signed by Obama, the Massachusetts law doesn’t create a system in which the government is the insurer, or provider of health care. Instead, both laws mandated that all residents have insurance, expanding business for private carriers. They also offered subsidies to help lower-income residents buy private insurance, and they expanded Medicaid.

Romney wrong on “private” insurance: Romney was correct when he shot back that 92 percent of Massachusetts residents already had insurance in the state before the law went into effect. But he went too far when he said, “They still had the same private insurance. And the 8 percent of the uninsured, they bought private insurance, not government insurance.” Neither statement is entirely true.

Many of those insured previously were covered by Medicare (for those age 65 or older) or Medicaid (for low-income residents), which are both government programs, not “private insurance.”

Santorum right on added coverage (with a caveat): And as Santorum correctly noted, Romney’s program covered the uninsured in part by expanding Medicaid for some, and by providing state subsidies for the purchase of private insurance for some others.

Santorum: “[O]ver half the people that came on the rolls since you put Romneycare into effect are fully subsidized by the state of Massachusetts. And a lot of those are on the Medicaid program.

That’s correct: Of the 411,722 individuals who have gained insurance since the law was passed, 47 percent, or 193,393, have joined MassHealth, the state’s Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program. The rest are on private insurance, with 77,330 buying their own insurance on the individual market and 158,973 getting plans with the help of state subsidies, as of Dec. 31, 2010.

In Romney’s defense, however, it should be noted that the ailing economy played a role in boosting the number of persons on Medicaid. In fact, the Massachusetts Medicaid Policy Institute estimates that 76 percent of the increase in Medicaid and CHIP beneficiaries would have happened without the law, and that only 61,000 of new MassHealth enrollees can be attributed to the legislation.

Another 75,000 are on fully subsidized plans, according to the Health Connector, the state exchange. All told, 65 percent of the newly insured are on fully subsidized insurance, whether through Medicaid or private insurance. So Santorum is correct, with the caveat that much of the Medicaid expansion would have occurred with or without Romney’s law.

As for Romney’s claim that “nothing changed” for the 92 percent of residents that already had insurance, that ignores the fact that they, too, are subject to the law requiring them to continue to have insurance — even if they leave their jobs, which is where most gained their coverage.

Santorum’s Dubious $8 Billion Claim: Santorum also said the state law was “$8 billion more expensive than under the current law.” (We assume he means the previous law.)

That questionable number comes from a conservative think tank that tallied not just the cost to the state government since the law was enacted in 2006, but also “new health care costs to the federal government and on state residents and businesses.” The June 2011 study came from the Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University.

A much lower estimate was issued by the nonpartisan Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, whichestimated that the law cost $707 million in fiscal 2010, with the state paying half of that and the federal government paying the rest.

Santorum wrong on premium costs: Santorum claimed Massachusetts premiums are the highest in the country, 27 percent more than average. Neither claim is true.

Santorum: Massachusetts has the highest health insurance premiums of any state in the country. It is 27 percent more expensive than the average state in the country.

In fact, seven states and the District of Columbia, which got top honors, had higher premiums for family coverage, according to a report by the Commonwealth Fund. Massachusetts had held the No. 1 spot in 2008 and 2009, but family premiums fell slightly to $14,606 in 2010. That’s only 5.3 percent more than the state average, nowhere near Santorum’s figure of 27 percent.

Romney’s right on premium costs: Romney responded to Santorum by saying:

Romney: Massachusetts, by the way, had the highest insurance costs before the plan was put in place and after. But fortunately, the rate of growth has slowed down a little less than the overall nation.

That’s right. The state’s slide in premium costs for 2010 does indeed mean the “rate of growth has slowed down,” as Romney said. We’d also note that premium costs in the state accounted for a lower percentage of the median household income than many other states.

Santorum misleads on waiting times: Santorum also gave a misleading view of the law’s impact on waiting times to see doctors:

Santorum: Over 50 percent of the doctors now are not seeing new patients — primary care doctors are not seeing new patients. Those who do get to see a patient are waiting 44 days on average for the care.

Those numbers come from reports by the Massachusetts Medical Society, which said in 2009 that the average wait time in the state for both family medicine and internal medicine was 44 days. But the group has been lamenting long wait times and doctor shortages for many years, since before the law was enacted, a point it noted in a 2011 report titled “Access to Health Care in Massachusetts: The Implications of Health Care Reform.” The medical society said that “primary care shortages continue in Massachusetts, but they predate health reform by many years, and mirror shortages in many other areas of the country.”

Also, the average wait time for family medicine physicians was down to 36 days on average in 2011, but the wait time for internal medicine physicians was up to 48 days. It’s hard to draw firm conclusions on the law’s impact. The wait time for internal medicine was 47 days in 2005, a year before the law was enacted. Santorum is correct that more than half of primary care physicians are no longer accepting new patients.

The medical society said the issues of doctor shortages and primary care physicians not seeing new patients weren’t solely due to the health care law, but it had contributed to the problem. “Although these challenges are not all a direct result of health care reform, in some cases health care reform has exacerbated the situation,” the society said.

Romney’s rosy view of premiums: Romney also used the most favorable estimates in describing a decrease in premiums for plans on the individual market:

Romney: Individuals who wanted to buy their own insurance saw their rates — when they were not part of a big group — saw their rates drop by some 40 percent with our plan.

It’s true that MIT economist Jonathan Gruber, who advised the Romney administration on the health care law, told us that individual market premiums dropped by as much as 40 percent. But some of that was due to young, healthy persons buying cheaper plans in that market after the law. That brought the average price down. He told us the decrease would be smaller if an adjustment was made for the less generous benefits in many of the newly purchased policies.

We found an 18 percent decrease in premiums when we looked at the individual market premium in 2006, per person per month, and compared that with the premium in 2008.

Santorum’s “failure” claim: Finally, Santorum said the Massachusetts law was “an abject failure.” In fact, the law succeeded in achieving its main goal: reducing the number of uninsured. As of the end of 2010, 98.1 percent of state residents, and 99.8 percent of children, had insurance.

Gingrich vs. Romney: Funding Abortion

Gingrich revisited an issue that came up in 2007, saying that when Romney was governor — and after he had become an abortion opponent — “a branch of the government which included his appointees did agree to fund an abortion clinic for Planned Parenthood.” That’s true as far as it goes — but there’s more to the story.

Two months before Romney left office, Massachusetts’ economic development agency granted initial approval to a $5 million tax-exempt bond — not direct taxpayer funding — for a Planned Parenthood clinic in Worcester that would provide abortions, according to the Boston Globe.

And though Gingrich is correct that the agency, MassDevelopment, was controlled by Romney appointees, it was an autonomous authority and not under the governor’s direct control.

Romney campaign spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom said in 2007 that Romney was simply unaware the project was under consideration, and that Romney would have attempted to block it if he had known about it.

In a statement to the Globe, Ranch Kimball, the chairman of the authority and a Romney appointee, said he did not brief the governor’s office on the initial approval of the loans in late 2006. Final approval of the project came in February 2007, a month after Romney left office, and was ultimately approved by Democratic Gov. Deval Patrick, an abortion rights supporter.

Gingrich Flunks History

Gingrich claimed that unemployment hit 10.8 percent under Democratic President Jimmy Carter:

Gingrich: Under Jimmy Carter, we had the wrong laws, the law regulations, the wrong leadership, and we killed jobs, we had inflation, we went to 10.8 percent unemployment. Under Ronald Reagan, we had the right jobs, the right laws, the right regulators, the right leadership. We created 16 million new jobs.

That’s wrong. The jobless rate never was higher than 7.8 percent during Carter’s presidency, and was as low as 5.6 percent.

The rate did later rise to 10.8 percent in November and December of 1982 — but that was nearly two years into Reagan’s first term. The rate declined slowly from there, and was still 7.3 percent when Reagan was sworn in for his second term. It did not get below 6 percent until late 1987, and was 5.4 percent when Reagan left office in January, 1989.

Romney vs. Gingrich: Reagan’s Diaries

With Gingrich claiming credit for helping create jobs during Reagan’s presidency, Romney cracked that Gingrich rated just one mention in the Reagan diaries, and not a particularly flattering mention at that.

Romney: I mean, Mr. Speaker, it was — you talk about all the things you did with Ronald Reagan and the Reagan revolution and the jobs created during the Reagan years and so forth. I mean, I looked at the Reagan diary. You’re mentioned once in Ronald Reagan’s diary.

And in the diary, he says you had an idea in a meeting of young congressmen, and it wasn’t a very good idea and he dismissed it. That’s the entire mention.

Just to check, we did a quick word search on the The Reagan Diaries – a daily diary President Reagan kept by hand — and as Romney said, there was but one mention of  Gingrich by name. It came in an entry for Monday, Jan. 3, 1983 — when Gingrich had been in the House barely four years.

The Reagan Diaries: A tough budget meeting & how to announce the deficits we’ll have — they are horrendous & yet the Dems. in Cong. are saying there is no room for budget cuts. Met with a group of young Repub. Congressmen. Newt Gingrich has a proposal for freezing the budget at the 1983 level. It’s a tempting idea except that it would cripple our defense program. And if we make an exception on that every special interest group will be asking for the same.

Given his tough budget-cutting stance in the 2012 campaign, Gingrich might be quite proud his budget-freezing proposal then as a young congressman from Georgia’s 6th district. But at the time, the Gipper didn’t think the idea was too practical.

Gingrich vs. Obama: Health Care

Gingrich — under attack from Santorum for once supporting a government mandate requiring individuals to obtain health insurance — denied that anything like Obama’s health care program could be found on the website of Gingrich’s Center for Health Transformation.

Gingrich: And the fact is, I helped found the Center for Health Transformation. I wrote a book called “Saving Lives and Saving Money” in 2002. You can go to healthtransformation.net and you’ll see hundreds of ideas, none of which resemble Barack Obama’s programs.

That’s not quite true. Wayne Oliver, a former lobbyist for the Georgia Pharmacy Association and a vice president at the center, wrote an op-ed that appeared in the Atlanta Journal Constitution April 23, 2009 on the so-called public option. Oliver wrote in opposition to a public-option plan, which was one of the options being considered by the Democrats at the beginning of the debate on a federal health care law. In the op-ed, Oliver says: “Everyone should be required to have health insurance coverage; or, if they are opposed to insurance, they should post a bond.”

That same position was also voiced by Gingrich — most recently during a May 15, 2011 interview on “Meet the Press.” He said, “I’ve said consistently we ought to have some requirement that you either have health insurance or you post a bond … or in some way you indicate you’re going to be held accountable.” And he acknowledged that would be “a variation” of the individual mandate idea.

In addition, the center published a book called, “Paper Kills 2.0: How Healthcare IT Can Save Your Life and Your Money.” The book, which is promoted on the center’s website,  advocates for improving patient outcomes by upgrading and expanding the use of electronic patient records. Gingrich and former Democratic Senate Leader Tom Daschle wrote the book’s foreword. Daschle was Obama’s first choiceto become the health and human services secretary and oversee his administration’s effort to change the health care laws to make insurance more affordable and accessible. The Affordable Care Act contains numerous health information technology provisions, as did the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which is known as the stimulus bill.

Paul: Medicine ‘Worked Rather Well’ Before Medicare

Texas Rep. Ron Paul, a physician, claimed medicine “worked rather well” in the early 1960s:

Paul: I had the privilege of practicing medicine in the early ’60s before we had any government. It worked rather well and there was nobody out in the street suffering with no medical care.

That was before Medicare was signed into law in 1965. But as early as 1959, during the Republican administration of President Dwight D. Eisenhower, the Department of Health, Education and Welfare issued a report to Congress stating that the rising cost of health care was forcing some people onto public assistance or charity from hospitals, and more so for the elderly than for younger persons:

HEW, 1959: The rising cost of medical care, and particularly of hospital care, over the past decade has been felt by persons of all ages. Older persons have larger than average medical care needs. As a group they use about two-and-a-half times as much general hospital care as the average for persons under age 65, and they have special need for long-term institutional care. Their incomes are generally considerably lower than those of the rest of the population, and in many cases are either fixed or declining in amount. They have less opportunity than employed persons to spread the cost burden through health insurance. A larger proportion of the aged than of other persons must turn to public assistance for payment of their medical bills or rely on ‘free’ care from hospitals and physicians.

Santorum vs. Obama: Cutting Veterans’ Benefits

Santorum criticized Obama for proposing cuts in military veterans’ benefits.

Santorum: We have the president of the United States who said he is going to cut veterans benefits, cut our military, at a time when these folks are four, five, six, seven tours, coming back, in and out of jobs, sacrificing everything for this country.

Much has been written about the president’s plans to reduce the size and cost of the U.S. military, but what about veterans’ benefits? The president’s deficit reduction plan does indeed propose some changes in military health and retirement programs.  The plan would:

• Impose a $200 annual fee on TRICARE for Life recipients. TRICARE for Life is a supplemental health insurance program for veterans 65 and over. It covers certain out-of-pocket expenses not covered by Medicare. Currently, TRICARE for Life does not charge fees or premiums. The administration estimates the proposal would save about $6.7 billion over 10 years.
• Increase prescription drug benefit co-pays. The administration estimates this proposal would save $20.6 billion over 10 years.
• Create a commission to study military retirement benefits. The deficit-reduction plan says the current benefits are “generous” and “out of line with most other Government or private retirement plans.”

The proposal was submitted in September, and has not become law.

– by Lori Robertson, Robert Farley, Eugene Kiely, Brooks Jackson and D’Angelo Gore.

Source:http://factcheck.org/2012/01/south-carolina-smackdown/

CNN GOP South Carolina debate review

The four remaining GOP candidates took to the stage in Charleston, South Carolina last night in what proved to be a contentious if somewhat disappointing debate. There was a distinct lack of meaningful question on foreign policy and again the national debt. However, many observers watching would say the debate was won and over within the first two minutes of the night.

CNN Chief National Correspondent John King opened the debate with a question about open marriage, following an interview by Gingrich’s ex-wife on ABC news saying that he had sought one, and would he like to answer?

Gingrich paused and perfectly executed his response saying “No, but I will,” Gingrich then gave King a full on Hair dryer reply saying, “To take an ex-wife and make it two days before the primary a significant question in a presidential campaign is as close to despicable as anything I can imagine,” Gingrich’s response brought roars of applause and support from the audience.

The debate came at the end of a fast breaking news day that saw former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum being declared winner of the Iowa caucuses more than two weeks after his apparent second-place finish to former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and Texas Gov. Rick Perry dropping out of the race and throwing his support to Gingrich. Texas Rep. Ron Paul was the fourth candidate in the debate.

Gingrich quite rightly went on the offensive chastising CNN for starting off with the question about his marriage following an earlier taped interview with ABC News being released with

Marianne Gingrich in which she alleged Gingrich asked for an “open marriage” before their divorce.

Marianne Gingrich told The Washington Post that a day after her husband told her about his affair with Callista Bisek in May 1999, the former House speaker delivered a speech titled “The Demise of American Culture” to a group of Republican women in Pennsylvania.

“How could he ask me for a divorce on Monday and within 48 hours give a speech on family values and talk about how people treat people?” Marianne Gingrich said in her interview with the Post. Gingrich said the story was false. The three other presidential candidates on the stage passed on the chance to criticize Gingrich over the allegations by his ex-wife.

Romney took the steady, cautious route that he has throughout the campaign, responding to his rivals only when attacked.

Santorum presented himself as a more conservative option to Romney than Gingrich and as the candidate who could draw an effective contrast in the fall with President Barack Obama.

As the debate was progressing, Gingrich’s campaign released his tax returns as he had promised to do earlier. Romney was asked if he would follow his father’s lead in releasing 12 years of tax returns. Romney’s father, George, ran for the 1968 Republican presidential nomination. “Maybe,” Romney said, before highlighting his business experience and his personal success. “I didn’t inherit money from my parents. What I have, I earned.”

As he had earlier this week, Santorum said he filed his own returns and they were at home on his computer and he would release them once he returned home. Paul said he had no intention to release his returns, arguing that congressional financial statements are revealing enough.

The issue of electability was hotly debated. Earlier this week, Gingrich called for both Perry and Santorum to drop out of the race and support his candidacy because they didn’t have the experience for a large undertaking like a presidential campaign. With Perry gone, Santorum was left to respond. “Grandiosity has never been a problem with Newt Gingrich,” Santorum said, arguing that he’s the steady choice and Republicans shouldn’t pick a nominee who might surprise them. While Gingrich and Santorum debated their records in Washington and specifically who was more responsible for the Republican Revolution of the 1990s, Romney raised his hand to argue it’s time for a Washington outsider. “We need to send to Washington someone who has not lived in Washington, but someone who’s lived in the real streets of America,” Romney said.

Every candidate onstage said they opposed the anti-Internet piracy bill roiling Congress, and criticized the proposal for being too intrusive. However, both Romney and Santorum said they could support a more narrow law that would help protect intellectual property rights online.

Displaying the off-the-cuff wit he has used to great effect at a series of GOP debates, Gingrich joked he was none too sympathetic to movie and music producers who pushed for the legislation. “You’re asking a conservative about the economic interest of Hollywood,” Gingrich said to laughter in the audience. “And I’m weighing it, I’m weighing it. I’m not rushing in.”

Meanwhile, Paul touted his libertarian-leaning views, adding he had been an early detractor of the bill. He said as president he would be unique in his ability to work with leaders on both sides of the aisle to protect civil liberties. The former obstetrician and gynecologist forced his way into the conversation on both health care and abortion, two issues he knows a lot about.

“I thought maybe you were prejudiced against doctors and a doctor that practiced medicine in the military or something,” Paul told King after a section where the other three candidates answered a question on whether a full repeal of President Obama’s health care reform was truly possible.

After a lengthy debate among the other three candidates over the legitimacy of criticizing Romney’s political conversion from pro-abortion rights to anti-abortion rights, the crowd booed and chanted Paul’s name when King moved on without letting Paul weigh in. “John, once again, it’s a medical subject and I’m a doctor,” Paul said.

Gingrich has surged into a virtual tie in nearly all the polls and grabbed a major endorsement when Perry announced he was backing Gingrich as he suspended his campaign.

Santorum’s campaign got a boost on Thursday when the Iowa GOP released the final certified results from its January 3 caucuses, which reversed Romney’s eight-vote victory and instead determined that Santorum had won by 34 votes.

 

The Fox News GOP South Carolina post-debate review

The Fox News South Carolina debate and GOP race was blown apart by two brilliant performances last night from Texas Governor Rick Perry, & former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. Both men turned in factual, solid, cool and collected performances. What was also noticeable about the night wasn’t so much that both men attacked establishment favourite Mitt Romney, it was the manner in which the former Massachusetts Governor fell apart all on his own. Romney must have been glad that Texas Rep. Ron Paul’s consistent approach on foreign policy proved its usual unpopular self with the attending audience.

The sharpest contrast that was highlighted between Gingrich, President Obama and Mitt Romney was the desperately worrying fashion in which the conservative media and establishment favourite Romney fell apart. Make no mistake ladies and gentlemen; this was a train wreck of a performance by Governor Romney, which in a national debate with President Obama would certainly have secured another four years for the current incumbent.

The former governor of Massachusetts faced tough questions over negative campaigning and his failure to release his tax returns and fell apart on a seemingly straight forward question on hunting. The biggest damage to Romney was how many lines of questioning Perry, Gingrich and Rick Santorum opened on Romney during the course of last night’s debate, and how ineffective he was in closing them off or responding to them.

Only if Rick Perry had of turning in debate performances like last night four months ago, this race could look very different now. Perry has some good sound bites like, “South Carolina is at war with this federal government!” Perry’s masterstroke was when he challenged Romney to release his tax returns; Romney was very visibly hesitant and awkward in his response. Perry also argued forcefully against cuts to military spending and condemned the administration’s condemnation of the Marines caught urinating on Taliban corpses

Santorum challenged Romney over his Super Pac’s attack ad on Santorum’s voting record over felon rights, Santorum, went for the jugular demanding that Romney say where he stood on the issue. When Romney said he did not believe “people who committed violent crimes should be allowed to vote,” Santorum pointed out that Massachusetts under Romney had even more lenient rules for felon enfranchisement than the ones Santorum supported. “If in fact you felt so passionately about this, why didn’t you try to change that when you were governor?” he asked. Romney’s response was weak and those watching knew it. Santorum however, had his mantle as the challenger to Romney stolen very firmly away from him last night by Speaker Gingrich, and it showed in the post-debate interview with Sean Hannity when he seemed to lose his composure.

Gingrich was pressed into his best debate performance of the season by the Juan Williams over his comments calling President Obama “A Food Stamp President.” in a brilliant response littered with the very best elements of the concept of the American Dream. The excellent Juan Williams, who asked many thought provoking questions all night asked: “Speaker Gingrich, you recently said black Americans should demand jobs, not food stamps. You also said poor kids lack a strong work ethic and proposed having them work as janitors in their schools. Can’t you see that this is viewed, at a minimum, as insulting to all Americans, but particularly to black Americans?”

“No. I don’t see that,” Gingrich replied. Gingrich argued that many children could learn good vales and the value and respect of having a paying job as opposed to the employment of one expensive janitor in New York, “they’d be getting money, which is a good thing if you’re poor.”

“New York City pays their janitors an absurd amount of money because of the union,” Gingrich said. “You could take one janitor and hire 30-some kids to work in the school for the price of one janitor, and those 30 kids would be a lot less likely to drop out. They would actually have money in their pocket. They’d learn to show up for work. They could do light janitorial duty. They could work in the cafeteria. They could work in the front office. They could work in the library.”

“They’d be getting money, which is a good thing if you’re poor,” he added. “Only the elites despise earning money.”

Williams stressed that some had perceived Gingrich’s comments about child labour, as well as remarks he made this month singling out blacks when speaking about food stamps, as offensive to poor people and racial minorities.

“The suggestion that he made was about a lack of work ethic,” Williams said. “And I’ve got to tell you, my e-mail account; my Twitter account has been inundated with people of all races who are asking if your comments are not intended to belittle the poor and racial minorities.”

“You saw some of this during your visit to a black church in South Carolina, where a woman asked you why you refer to President Obama as ‘the food stamp president,’” Williams continued. “It sounds as if you are seeking to belittle people.” Williams’ points resulted in loud boos from the audience.

“Well, first of all, Juan, the fact is that more people have been put on food stamps by Barack Obama than any president in American history,” Gingrich said to applause. “Now, I know among the politically correct, you’re not supposed to use facts that are uncomfortable.”

“I believe every American of every background has been endowed by their creator with the right to pursue happiness,” he said. “And if that makes liberals unhappy, I’m going to continue to find ways to help poor people learn how to get a job, learn how to get a better job and learn some day to own the job.” Gingrich’s response was met with a standing ovation from many in the audience.

I’ve maintained throughout the last few months that Romney, is not strong enough under pressure or on foreign affairs. These weaknesses again came rushing to the front and if Gingrich wanted to press home his advantage last night, he easily could’ve done it.

Above all, I was pleased that despite a huge concerted effort by the conservative media and establishment, to anoint Romney this weekend in South Carolina, the ordinary viewer and supporter observed saw for themselves how weak a front runner Governor Romney actually is. People should not dismiss President Obama, and the scale of the challenge facing any GOP nominee in an election.

You will hear a lot of attempts in the coming days from media commentators saying,” Gingrich can’t win in the General election”. Ignore their efforts; this 2012 election has to be about issues, ideas and solutions. If the American people go for personality, the election is already a foregone conclusion. Only the voters and your average American person can make it about the issues that matter to them, jobs, the economy, health, housing and security.

New Hampshire debate(s) Winners and Losers

The following article’s original Source is the Washington Post . I shall be writing a separate article on the second MeetThePress/Facebook New Hampshire debate.

In the past twelve hours the six men running for the Republican presidential nomination have debated not once but twice.

WINNERS

* Mitt Romney: The former Massachusetts governor glided to a victory in Saturday’s debate as none of his rivals seemed willing to challenge him in any sustained way. (Why not? We have no idea.)

That changed in the Sunday morning debate as both former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich went at Romney — largely on his attempts to cast himself as a outsider to the political process. (Gingrich dismissed Romney’s rhetoric on that front as “pious baloney”. We prefer fried baloney. Delicious fried baloney.)

Those moments when he was under attack were some of the worst for Romney in either debate; he is still an awkward presence when challenged (“Let me complete!”) and doesn’t like doing it. (One break from that tendency: Romney handled questions about his commitment — or lack thereof — to gay rights very deftly.)

But, the attacks against Romney just weren’t sustained enough to keep him out of his comfort zone for long or change the governing dynamic in New Hampshire or anywhere else. And that’s a win for him.

* Jon Huntsman: In both debates, the former Utah governor felt relevant to the conversation — a marked change from some of the past gatherings.

And, Huntsman repeatedly tried to step above the fray — painting in broad strokes about the need to come together in politics rather than break apart. Huntsman’s best moment in any debate came when he pushed back on Romney’s bashing over his service in the Obama Administration — noting that he has and always will put country first.

Huntsman’s performances should help him win over undecided independent voters in New Hampshire. But it’s hard to see his middle-of-the-road messaging winning him much beyond that. Still, a win is a win.

* David Gregory:Gregory, the host of “Meet the Press”, delivered a command performance as moderator this morning. He asked pointed questions, tried to force the candidates to answer them (no easy feat) and allowed moments of genuine disagreement between the candidates to play out. A job very well done. (Full disclosure: I am a paid contributor for MSNBC. Do what you will with that knowledge.)

* Super PACs: All the chatter about what they are doing and why helps the people staffing them make the case to donors of their relevance. Ah, unintended consequences!

LOSERS

* Ron Paul: The Texas Republican Congressman got plenty of time to talk in each of the debates. But that was the problem. Paul proved — again — that he really is off on an island in this race. His views are simply nowhere near the mainstream of the Republican party. Like, not even in the same zip code.

That’s all and well good if you are already a devoted Paulite — RON PAUL — but less good if you want Paul to actually be the GOP’s nominee in 2012.

Paul has created a political trap for himself. His libertarian views on everything from the Fed to American involvement in foreign wars is what has won him such unceasingly loyal support. It’s also what makes his growth in the race virtually impossible. The twin debates over the last 12 hours highlighted that fact.

* Newt Gingrich: The old Gingrich — chastising moderators, delivering droll quips — was back in these two debates. And there is obviously a segment of voters who really respond that Gingrich.

But, it’s far from presidential and, ultimately, is a sort of cul-de-sac politically that as recently as a month ago Gingrich looked like he had found a way out of.

Gingrich and his team almost certainly believe they scored a direct hit on Romney and super PACs — a hobbyhorse for the former Speaker — but we are always skeptical of how much process arguments matter to actual voters.

Gingrich had his moments — he always does in debates — but overall he seemed too willing to lapse back into a rhetorical style that might win him a battle or two but won’t win him the war.

* Real life: We are continually amazed at how much the candidates struggle to answer non-political questions. Asked last night what they would be doing if they weren’t debating on a Saturday night, the candidates reacted as if they had just been asked to cite the one thing they hated most about Ronald Reagan.

Perry went first and said he would be at a shooting range, which, in retrospect, might have been the best answer. Gingrich followed by saying he would be watching the “college basketball championship” and then corrected himself to say the “football” game. Romney went along with that answer as did Santorum. The problem? The national championship football game is Monday night.

Reporters spend lots of time wondering why people dislike politicians so much. It’s because politicians don’t seem to get it. The “Saturday night” question made that point crystal clear.

(Sidebar: This is exactly why we favor lightning rounds, “this or that” questions etc. Voters want to know what the person they are voting for is really like, not just where they stand on the policy issues of the day.)

ABC News/Yahoo Debate GOP New Hampshire post-debate analysis

I stayed up until 02:00hrs (UK Time) tonight to watch with anticipation, the expected slug feast that was meant to be the GOP ABC News /Yahoo debate. Sadly, the standard of debate questions were the poorest of any to date, and I actually felt more sorry for the moderators asking the questions ,then for the candidates, who had to stand through this whole debacle which was capped off with the most amateurish of finishes.

Ron Paul was put on the spot early by moderator George Stephanopoulos, over his accusation of corruption against Senator Rick Santorum in his campaign ads.

“It was a quote,” explained Paul. “Somebody did make a survey and he came up as one of the top corrupt individuals because he took so much from lobbyists.”

There was a good composed opening by Romney and Santorum on the issue of the latest jobs report although Santorum was reluctant to repeat his criticism of Romney when urged by the moderator.

At that moment, there was a loud noise and the microphone had some feedback, Santorum seized the moment saying, “They caught you not telling the truth, Ron.”

Mr. Paul quickly went after Mr. Santorum as well, faulting him for his “big government” votes while in Congress, controversy regarding his residency, and money he has taken since leaving office.

“I wish I had 20 minutes to answer this,” Mr. Santorum said. “It’s a ridiculous charge, and you should know better.” He defended his earmarks on behalf of Pennsylvania and the work he has done in the private sector.

“You’re a big spender,” Mr. Paul insisted. “You’re a big-government conservative, and somebody has to say it.”

Governor Perry did well citing his record and Washington outsider status in his quest for the presidential role and accused Ron Paul of taking earmarks for his district and then voting against the Bill saying it hinted of hypocrisy. Ouch! Perry also did well on the military question highlighting the $1 Billion in cuts under the Obama administration in three years, not just the recent cuts.

The next heated exchange came between Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich in a fiery heated exchange following a remark earlier in the week by Paul that Gingrich was a “Chicken Hawk” for supporting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan even though he himself has never served in the military.

Asked whether he stands by the remark, Paul responds:

“Yeah. I think people who don’t serve when they could and they get three or four or even five deferments, they have no right to send our kids off to war. … I’m trying to stop the wars. At least I went when they called me up.”

Newt clearly annoyed but disciplined not to appear snarly coolly responds, “Dr. Paul makes a lot of comments. It’s part of his style,” he says. He adds: “Dr. Paul has a long history of saying things that are inaccurate and false. The fact is, I never asked for a deferment.”

Paul responds, ““I have a pet peeve that annoys me to a great deal, because when I see these young men coming back, my heart weeps for them.”

Gingrich then notes his father’s years in the military and chides Paul: “I think I have a pretty good idea of what it’s like as a family to worry about your father getting killed, and I personally resent the kinds of comments and aspersions he routinely makes without accurate information, and then just slurs people.”

The debate then turned to a social values question on Contraception which Romney, Huntsman and Santorum all did their level best at ducking the question and trying not to sound too controversial.

Step up Newt Gingrich! “I just want to raise a point about the news media bias,” he says. He goes on to say that there is more “anti-Christian bias” than bias against other religious groups under this current administration and attacks the administration for their treatment of the Christian faith and receives rapturous applause from the audience.

The debate continued with some further questions and probing on the Patriot Act and privacy, with Ron Paul delivering a good response on the right to privacy under the constitution.

The next controversial issues was the right to Gay Marriage which Romney ducked again, and clearly did his level best to view it as a states rights issue with Santorum effectively agreeing with his assessment and Jon Huntsman distinguishing between traditional religious rights and legal rights. Newt stepped up again with a good answer on gay rights and designation and contrasted his position well to the right of marriage.

On the issue of Iraq, a huge talking point will be no doubt Rick Perry’s tearing up of the textbook by saying he’d send U.S. troops back into Iraq. Nobody expected that response and no doubt his team will try and walk back his response.

There was some discussion over tax and economic plans but to be fair to the candidates, the questions were of such a poor standard that we learnt nothing new and the questions didn’t enable us to learn anything factually new.

All the candidates struggled on the issues of Afghanistan, Iraq and foreign policy in general with the exception of Newt Gingrich who gave a master class in the level of thinking and vision a president needs. “If you want to stop Wahabbism, get an American energy policy so no American president ever again bows to a Saudi king and rattled of a number of ideas and solutions with so much ease frankly, it made the other candidates look poor. Romney was again exposed showing he is great at saying what President Obama isn’t doing but can’t tell us what he’d do as President.

Santorum did well when talking about being a president who would bring every American together not be a divider like President Obama saying, “If you want someone that’s a clear contrast, that has a strong record, has a vision for this country that’s going to get this country going – an appeal to blue-collar workers in Pennsylvania, and Ohio, and Michigan and Indiana, and deliver that message that we care about you too, not just about Wall Street and bailing them out, then I’m the guy that you want to put in the nomination.”

Gingrich came out with a very humourous, but well driven home point about President Obama’s attempt to develop a radical European socialist system in the United States, which went down very well with the audience.

All the candidates did relatively well with the possible exception of Jon Huntsman, who despite an encouraging start got completely slammed on the issue of trade with China by Mitt Romney, and desperately resorted to speaking Mandarin to try and save the point, he didn’t.

Overall the debate was the most disappointing so far, largely because of the lame questions being asked & it made of mockery of it, supposing to be a presidential standard debate being put on by the network. It left the viewers and candidates short changed. I couldn’t believe that throughout the entire debate there was no question on Obamacare, debt or entitlement reform.

Newt & Romney are in a league of their own compared to the rest of the field; I just wish we could narrow down the field and have some real substantive debates.

All candidates generally had a good night, Newt was the quality class responder however, Romney was the winner purely due to the fact that, nobody laid a glove on him and he hammered Huntsman on China.

P.S. I’d like to thanks Tina Revers for her input & contribution in producing this analysis.

The New Hampshire Presidential debates – It could be “live free or die” – for some candidates challenge.

The race for the Republican Party presidential nomination heats up this weekend with a set of weekend debates providing what could be, the last chance for some of the Republican presidential hopefuls to prove, who is the best alternative to frontrunner Mitt Romney ahead of next week’s New Hampshire primary.

The six remaining candidates will go head to head in Saturday’s ABC News, Yahoo and WMUR sponsored debate.  Front runner Mitt Romney who has a residence in the state and was governor of neighbouring Massachusetts, appears to have an unassailable lead according to the latest Union Leader poll with 47 percent of New Hampshire GOP primary voters saying they would vote for Romney, compared to 17 percent for Ron Paul and 13 percent for Jon Huntsman.

Saturday’s debate will be followed by another on Sunday in NBC’s – Meet the Press debate, which will be the first time in the campaign that major debates will have been held back to back.

Romney has come under increasing attack since his slim-line victory in Iowa over Rick Santorum and is expected to be very much the candidate under fire in both debates. Romney also suffered a huge blow with the major Newspaper – The Boston Globe coming out in support of Jon Huntsman over Romney, on the eve of the debate.

Romney has the most to lose, not only is he expected to win New Hampshire comfortably, he is expected to win big, so any slip ups in the debates could severely damage his somewhat expectant party nomination. Romney needs to remain on message and appear presidential like as in previous debates. Romney has shown a tendency to be prickly when challenged on his record, and he will need to avoid any reactive snappy comments.

Fresh from his excellent second place finish and injection of campaign cash from donors, it will be an equally big night for former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum who will find himself front and center of the attention for the first time in these debates. Santorum has struggled for air-time in all the previous debates, but his good fortune and excellent Iowa finish brings with it a higher level of expectation. Santorum needs to win the conservative battle with friend and fellow challenger former speaker – Newt Gingrich to be the clear alternative to Romney. Santorum is a good debater but some possible chinks in his armour may be his social stances on Gay-Marriage, Gay members serving in the military and earmarks during his time as Senator. Social issues do not have the same level of weight in New Hampshire as they do in Iowa, and policy and position stances are very much more under the scrutiny of voters. Santorum needs to remain composed and focus on his policy stances as far as possible to maintain his excellent momentum.

The two candidates who could prove decisive in the outcome of both debates are Ron Paul & Jon Huntsman.

Ron Paul’s campaign has raised a massive $13 million in the fourth quarter, behind only Romney’s fundraising of more than $20 million. New Hampshire’s primary has a considerable number of independent voters and it is likely, Paul will place well regardless of the debates. Paul’s domestic policies are popular, but with the increasing current tension with Iran have come increasing scrutiny and attention on his foreign policy stance which has drawn a sharp contrast between him and the other candidates. My belief is that Paul will go after Perry and Gingrich in these two debates strategically, hoping to deal their campaigns the all important fatal blow. A three horse race as opposed to a six horse race would suit Paul considerably more in his efforts to be the Romney alternative.

Turning to the dark horse of the race Jon Huntsman, it depends which Jon Huntsman turns up to the debates. Anyone who observed the Huntsman-Gingrich debates in December would’ve realised here is a candidate who is as equally intelligent as Gingrich, he has a very unique perspective on Asia-Pacific matters and an exceptional record as former Governor of the state of Utah.

Huntsman in my opinion has been too quick to play the “I’m your guy next door” routine in previous major debates. He needs to show he is serious on the issues, remain focussed and appear presidential like, all at the same time as challenging front runner Romney. Many believe Huntsman and Romney are from the moderate side of the Republican Party however, Huntsman has bet his entire strategy on doing well in New Hampshire. Perhaps Huntsman’s strategy was to wait until these debates before really showing what he is capable of doing. If so, it will prove an effective strategy, if however, he performs as in previous debates his entire campaign will be over once voting is completed next Tuesday.

Texas Governor Rick Perry appeared to be on the verge of pulling out of the race following Iowa’s result. In Perry’s favour going into these debates is the fact that expectations couldn’t be lower. Perry has become a hit on YouTube due to a series of blunders in his campaign and previous debates however, he has absolutely nothing to lose and his last few debate performances have been encouraging. I believe Perry will have a few key attack moments prepared for tomorrow night and he can choose his moment to go on the offensive. I actually expect Perry to surprise a lot of people for all the right reasons in both debates, and it could provide the boost he needs ahead of his make or break challenge in South Carolina later in the month.

Finally, I’ve saved the best for last, former Speaker Gingrich who many are saying he’ll be “Nasty Newt”. Other then Romney and despite the claims of many in the media and establishment, Newt as it currently stands, is the only other real electable candidate at a national level in the race. Newt was clearly hurt by the attacks from Romney and Paul in Iowa over the last month, and where he has tried to run a positive campaign, he now realises he has to not turn negative, but stand stronger.

Newt has a brilliant mind and like all brilliant people, they sometimes make mistakes but America as a nation needs a president who is prepared to change the course of Washington, has the knowledge and ability to do it and above all, someone who will not be afraid to explore new departures for the benefit of the nation.

Newt has performed extremely well during all the previous debates but must be careful not to be overly eager at attacking Romney tomorrow night. Newt in my opinion needs to focus on his own ideas & policies, if challenged on his record or a mistake must be honest and if necessary, apologetic. Most importantly, he needs to avoid appearing snarly.

Newt should focus on President Obama and not the other candidates unless they attack him. The watching public want to see the alternative to President Obama emerge and he needs to draw a clear contrast between what he’d do as president, compared to the president. This is where Romney attacking Gingrich has been clever, he has forced Gingrich to remain on the defensive and appear local while he strides forward appearing to look presidential and national level like.

Newt needs to play to his strengths and avoid going on the attack however; he needs to be prepared for them. Where Newt can win these debates in by focussing on President Obama and being firm but assertive in his responses to any attacks from the other candidates against him. If he follows these points and remains disciplined, he’ll win both debates comfortably and remind everyone, why he can be the real alternative to President Obama.

One thing is guaranteed from both debates; expect them to be highly negative and vicious in some cases. It is make or break time especially for Huntsman so the stakes are getting higher as the field is getting smaller. I’m hoping whatever the outcome; an alternative to Romney emerges over the next three weeks who can make the primary race a competitive one and not a foregone conclusion as the establishment and some in the media want for Romney.

The New Hampshire Presidential debates – It could be "live free or die" – for some candidates challenge.

The race for the Republican Party presidential nomination heats up this weekend with a set of weekend debates providing what could be, the last chance for some of the Republican presidential hopefuls to prove, who is the best alternative to frontrunner Mitt Romney ahead of next week’s New Hampshire primary.

The six remaining candidates will go head to head in Saturday’s ABC News, Yahoo and WMUR sponsored debate.  Front runner Mitt Romney who has a residence in the state and was governor of neighbouring Massachusetts, appears to have an unassailable lead according to the latest Union Leader poll with 47 percent of New Hampshire GOP primary voters saying they would vote for Romney, compared to 17 percent for Ron Paul and 13 percent for Jon Huntsman.

Saturday’s debate will be followed by another on Sunday in NBC’s – Meet the Press debate, which will be the first time in the campaign that major debates will have been held back to back.

Romney has come under increasing attack since his slim-line victory in Iowa over Rick Santorum and is expected to be very much the candidate under fire in both debates. Romney also suffered a huge blow with the major Newspaper – The Boston Globe coming out in support of Jon Huntsman over Romney, on the eve of the debate.

Romney has the most to lose, not only is he expected to win New Hampshire comfortably, he is expected to win big, so any slip ups in the debates could severely damage his somewhat expectant party nomination. Romney needs to remain on message and appear presidential like as in previous debates. Romney has shown a tendency to be prickly when challenged on his record, and he will need to avoid any reactive snappy comments.

Fresh from his excellent second place finish and injection of campaign cash from donors, it will be an equally big night for former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum who will find himself front and center of the attention for the first time in these debates. Santorum has struggled for air-time in all the previous debates, but his good fortune and excellent Iowa finish brings with it a higher level of expectation. Santorum needs to win the conservative battle with friend and fellow challenger former speaker – Newt Gingrich to be the clear alternative to Romney. Santorum is a good debater but some possible chinks in his armour may be his social stances on Gay-Marriage, Gay members serving in the military and earmarks during his time as Senator. Social issues do not have the same level of weight in New Hampshire as they do in Iowa, and policy and position stances are very much more under the scrutiny of voters. Santorum needs to remain composed and focus on his policy stances as far as possible to maintain his excellent momentum.

The two candidates who could prove decisive in the outcome of both debates are Ron Paul & Jon Huntsman.

Ron Paul’s campaign has raised a massive $13 million in the fourth quarter, behind only Romney’s fundraising of more than $20 million. New Hampshire’s primary has a considerable number of independent voters and it is likely, Paul will place well regardless of the debates. Paul’s domestic policies are popular, but with the increasing current tension with Iran have come increasing scrutiny and attention on his foreign policy stance which has drawn a sharp contrast between him and the other candidates. My belief is that Paul will go after Perry and Gingrich in these two debates strategically, hoping to deal their campaigns the all important fatal blow. A three horse race as opposed to a six horse race would suit Paul considerably more in his efforts to be the Romney alternative.

Turning to the dark horse of the race Jon Huntsman, it depends which Jon Huntsman turns up to the debates. Anyone who observed the Huntsman-Gingrich debates in December would’ve realised here is a candidate who is as equally intelligent as Gingrich, he has a very unique perspective on Asia-Pacific matters and an exceptional record as former Governor of the state of Utah.

Huntsman in my opinion has been too quick to play the “I’m your guy next door” routine in previous major debates. He needs to show he is serious on the issues, remain focussed and appear presidential like, all at the same time as challenging front runner Romney. Many believe Huntsman and Romney are from the moderate side of the Republican Party however, Huntsman has bet his entire strategy on doing well in New Hampshire. Perhaps Huntsman’s strategy was to wait until these debates before really showing what he is capable of doing. If so, it will prove an effective strategy, if however, he performs as in previous debates his entire campaign will be over once voting is completed next Tuesday.

Texas Governor Rick Perry appeared to be on the verge of pulling out of the race following Iowa’s result. In Perry’s favour going into these debates is the fact that expectations couldn’t be lower. Perry has become a hit on YouTube due to a series of blunders in his campaign and previous debates however, he has absolutely nothing to lose and his last few debate performances have been encouraging. I believe Perry will have a few key attack moments prepared for tomorrow night and he can choose his moment to go on the offensive. I actually expect Perry to surprise a lot of people for all the right reasons in both debates, and it could provide the boost he needs ahead of his make or break challenge in South Carolina later in the month.

Finally, I’ve saved the best for last, former Speaker Gingrich who many are saying he’ll be “Nasty Newt”. Other then Romney and despite the claims of many in the media and establishment, Newt as it currently stands, is the only other real electable candidate at a national level in the race. Newt was clearly hurt by the attacks from Romney and Paul in Iowa over the last month, and where he has tried to run a positive campaign, he now realises he has to not turn negative, but stand stronger.

Newt has a brilliant mind and like all brilliant people, they sometimes make mistakes but America as a nation needs a president who is prepared to change the course of Washington, has the knowledge and ability to do it and above all, someone who will not be afraid to explore new departures for the benefit of the nation.

Newt has performed extremely well during all the previous debates but must be careful not to be overly eager at attacking Romney tomorrow night. Newt in my opinion needs to focus on his own ideas & policies, if challenged on his record or a mistake must be honest and if necessary, apologetic. Most importantly, he needs to avoid appearing snarly.

Newt should focus on President Obama and not the other candidates unless they attack him. The watching public want to see the alternative to President Obama emerge and he needs to draw a clear contrast between what he’d do as president, compared to the president. This is where Romney attacking Gingrich has been clever, he has forced Gingrich to remain on the defensive and appear local while he strides forward appearing to look presidential and national level like.

Newt needs to play to his strengths and avoid going on the attack however; he needs to be prepared for them. Where Newt can win these debates in by focussing on President Obama and being firm but assertive in his responses to any attacks from the other candidates against him. If he follows these points and remains disciplined, he’ll win both debates comfortably and remind everyone, why he can be the real alternative to President Obama.

One thing is guaranteed from both debates; expect them to be highly negative and vicious in some cases. It is make or break time especially for Huntsman so the stakes are getting higher as the field is getting smaller. I’m hoping whatever the outcome; an alternative to Romney emerges over the next three weeks who can make the primary race a competitive one and not a foregone conclusion as the establishment and some in the media want for Romney.

The Fox News GOP debate analysis

Newt Gingrich entered last night’s Fox News debate in Sioux City, Iowa, with a political target on his back, as Mitt Romney and the rest of the Republican presidential candidates looked to challenge his front-runner status ahead of the Iowa Caucuses. In a week that has seen unacceptable attacks from a bygone era from the likes of Mitt Romney and Ron Paul, Gingrich, vowed to stay to stay positive. My big fear before the debate was that the Republican candidates would have done so much damage in their primary campaign that any hopes of beating President Obama would be all but disappeared before 2012 had even begun.

The moderators were Megyn Kelly, Bret Baier, Chris Wallace and Neil Cavuto and they put forward good strong questions and weren’t afraid to challenge the candidates. I was especially pleased to hear a question on the Fast and the furious being placed, as it is a topic certain to raise its head during the general election.

WINNERS

Newt Gingrich

Speaker Gingrich was definitely looking for a big performance on the night to compliment his new found front runner status. Gingrich did receive some tough questioning especially from Michele Bachmann over his involvement with Freddie Mac. Overall though, Newt as in all the previous debates, was the most substantive on policy and tried his best to stay focussed on the policy aspect on the night. He added humour into his responses saying he didn’t want to be viewed as overly critically, so he was standing there editing before responding to a question about President Obama and the Keystone pipeline, he even poked fun at recent critiques of his “zany” reputation. Gingrich delivered a powerful condemnation of President Obama campaigning instead of passing the approval for the Keystone pipeline. One thing I noticed was that while Bachmann was quick to attack Newt at every opportunity, Bachmann on more then one occasion deferred to Gingrich’s response and threw some additional commentary to attempt to build up her response in some instances. Gingrich demonstrated with ease that he has the solid base of policy and in particular foreign policy, that no other candidate can match. Overall a good, solid, winning performance by former speaker Gingrich and after a week where the GOP party machine and many other Republican Super Pac’s, have been running a hard hitting campaign against him.

The two biggest issues of clarification for me on the night were that he possesses the policies to beat President Obama and the toughness to face the attacks that would come in a general election campaign. Newt is tough and in my view, has demonstrated that he desperately wants people’s votes and to challenge President Obama.

Rick Santorum

Contrary to many media commentators, I believe former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum did himself a world of good during last nights debate. While he wasn’t as outlandishly aggressive like Bachmann, he again highlighted his efforts in Iowa. He emphasised the need to restore American manufacturing jobs and gave a very good answer on the Iranian issue, again clashing with Ron Paul. The one thing I think Santorum managed to do very subtlety last night was position himself as the strong social conservative to the Iowa voters. The conservative voters of Iowa will have noticed his performance to their satisfaction even if, the mass media didn’t pick up on it. I thought it was Santorum’s best debate night without appearing desperate as Bachmann did. Should he get a decent result and surprise a few people in Iowa. An area Santorum will need some stronger selling points on is job creation and the economy, if he is to make an impact in later states.

Mitt Romney

Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney appeared to heed the general consensus before the debate, that he needed to move away from his ill advised and much publicised attacks in particular against Newt Gingrich. I was extremely surprised to hear in the post debate summary on Fox News that Frank Luntz and Hannity, thought he won the debate. I thought to myself, what! I must have been watching a different debate. Romney’s performance was safe; he managed to provide some good substantive answers on the economy and did well in explaining his role with Bain Capital. Romney was presidential in his delivery, but yet again, almost tripped up in the debate on foreign policy. Like Gingrich, Romney focussed his attacks on President Obama to good effect saying, if he is elected president this century will be an American century, not a Chinese century. Romney explained the narrative about working with an overwhelmingly Democratic legislature in Massachusetts, which was effective to a watching audience.

In my humble opinion, not his best debate performance but a comfortable one nonetheless. My concern with Romney is that he will look like a Republican, but sound too much like a Democrat in a general election match-up against President Obama. I’m yet to be convinced of his ability to take on the Obama campaign machine and win. Romney is too prickly in my view to take the harsh attacks that will inevitably come in a general election campaign.

Rick Perry

The Texas Governor had a relatively quiet first half of the debate until a question by Neil Cavuto brought him to life on his debating skills. I loved the way he put humour but a level of seriousness into his reply saying he would even turn up early to debate President Obama. He did well attacking Gingrich over his perceived inability to distinguish between a lobbyist and a consultant.” An interesting if somewhat equally confusing statement was when he compared himself to Denver bronco’s Quarterback Tim Tebow. The point he was trying to make essentially was he is now an underdog candidate but can mount a comeback against the odds like Tebow. Perry has restored some credibility to his challenge and his call for a part-time Congress is starting to catch some people’s attention. If Perry can finish in the top four in Iowa and with his recent renewed confidence, he could challenge in South Carolina and Florida in a serious way. Perry is starting to show he is resilient and prepared to fight his way back into contention.

Losers

Michele Bachmann

I’ll give Congresswoman Bachmann credit for her gutsy and aggressive performance last night. She took every opportunity to try and steal the limelight but over cooked her fine start by trying to hit Gingrich again on his record with Planned Parenthood. She sounded like a moaning child in a playground saying she’s serious candidate, the mere fact she used that statement immediately made the point that actually, although she’s a serious politician, her day and chances of winning in Iowa are all but gone. I highlighted how she would default to Gingrich’s answer when it appeared to anyone watching, that the question she was asked, stumped her slightly. My point here is, you cannot attack a candidate constantly and when it suits you for playing it safe purposes, defer to their answer as the authoritative response if you want to be president. I did enjoy her tussle with Ron Paul on his position in Iran. Surprisingly she didn’t use the Newt Romney line which has been so effective in the previous debate. Gingrich was clever mentioning her statements as being often factually incorrect, a simple yet effective rebuttal, as it is a charge she has often been accused of in the past. Overall, I credit her for her effort but she over played her hand somewhat and were noticeably exposed in some of her response. An “A” for effort though, but a case of too little, too late.

Ron Paul

As always Ron Paul supporters packed the auditorium and were their usual vocal selves. Paul was energised, direct and articulate in most of his responses and he is clearly enjoying his moment as serious contender for winning the Iowa caucus. Paul as always was consistent, repeated his commitment to cutting $1 trillion from the budget. He looked and acted like a frontrunner however, his isolationist stance on Iran hurt him badly again last night. Only if Paul could find a way of shifting his position on Iran slightly he would have much greater broad appeal but as we witnessed during Bachmann’s brutal and most powerful attack, his foreign policy makes him frankly unelectable in a general election. Paul will have a good result in Iowa no doubt largely due to his organisation and supporters however; he simply isn’t electable with his stance on Iran. Paul got hit hard in the post-debate conversation with Sean Hannity over his Newsletter and he was visibly rattled and agitated by Hannity. I don’t expect to see him appearing anytime soon on the Hannity show.

Jon Huntsman

I have a simple statement here, would the real Jon Huntsman stand up. If anyone watched the debate between himself and Gingrich earlier in the week they will see he was simply brilliant. Last night it was a train wreck, simple. Huntsman’s attempts at humour and using young language such as “we are getting screwed as Americans” fell flat. He didn’t make an impression with any of his answers and seemed too laid back and without any real sense of passion throughout. A very disappointing performance and ironically, he probably did himself some harm in New Hampshire too, where he was starting to make some recent gains.

Summary

Overall, the lesson from the night was the fact that perhaps it was the first night where the GOP candidates are starting to cause damage to President Obama and gain interest from the larger electorate. A promising night for the party and something to certainly start the Obama campaign machine to stop taking re-election as guaranteed.

The Huntsman-Gingrich debate verdict: Take a second look at Huntsman

Former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman and former Speaker Newt Gingrich met Monday in a one-on-one debate in a Lincoln-Douglas style format where each candidate was given five uninterrupted minutes on each topic related to foreign policy and national security during the 90-minute debate at the St. Anselm Institute of Politics, in New Hampshire.

The debate flew along in terms of time and was brilliantly insightful.  I was extremely impressed with Huntsman’s grasp of the major threats facing the United States and his interpretation on how to deal with the challenges. The format enabled both men to explore each topic headline in depth and it was centred on substance no cheap shots were dealt by either man during the entire debate. The discussion points allowed both men to demonstrate a remarkable depth of knowledge on matters from Afghanistan, Pakistan, Israel, Iran to China.

Huntsman who wasn’t involved in the ABC debate at the weekend and has recently been involved in a spat over deciding not to be involved in the Donald Trump debate excelled throughout.  Huntsman jokingly said, “I can’t wait to compare and contrast this format with the Donald Trump debate,” Huntsman said. Huntsman was relaxed, natural, and humourous but displayed a knowledge and vision which even the most partisan onlooker could not help but admire. There can be no doubt, the former Utah Governor came off looking like one of the most intelligent, experienced people running for office possibly with the exception of Gingrich himself.

Huntsman said Iran posed a bigger problem than any other country right now, calling it the “transcendent threat” and saying all options are on the table in dealing with the regime there. He continued saying a nuclear Iran would lead Turkey and other nations to build nuclear programs. “I think all options are on the table, and I do believe we’re going to have a conversation with Israel” when Iran goes nuclear. Huntsman also said the Obama Administration missed a huge opportunity to get a foothold in the region with the Arab Spring.

Gingrich put on another masterful professorial display, he managed to speak in clear and simple terms about all the issues showing the audience the vast amount of knowledge he’s picked up and retained over decades of foreign policy work. He controversially said that the next president would most likely be put in a position to choose between assisting Israel in a ground war against Iran or standing by as nukes were unleashed from one side or the other (if not both) which could result in a “second holocaust” for the Jewish people.  One thing you have to admire about the former speaker and his campaign is that he is prepared to speak on the controversial topics that most people think privately but avoid speaking publicly on. It is refreshing to see a presidential candidate being prepared and willing to discuss them on the campaign trail

On the topic of China, Gingrich said the Chinese will be the United States’ most important relationship for decades to come. “The most important relationship of the next 50 years is the American people and the Chinese people,” Gingrich said, differentiating that from the relationship between the governments. “If you don’t fundamentally rethink what we’re doing here, you cannot compete with China,” Gingrich added. “If we do the right thing here, China can’t compete with us.” This was well received by the attentive audience.

On Afghanistan Huntsman said the United States has had success in Afghanistan, and that it should bring the troops home. “I think we’ve done the best that we could do, but I think we’ve done all we could do,” he said, repeating his past statements on the topic, which differ from his GOP opponents. Huntsman said the time has passed for nation-building and counter-insurgency, and that the new mission should be focused on counter-terrorism.

Huntsman went on to say that the United States’ relationship with Pakistan is too “transactional.” “Pakistan, sadly, is nothing more than a transactional relationship with the United States,” Huntsman said. “For all the money we put into Pakistan, are we in a better situation? The answer is no.”

During his closing remarks, Gingrich highlighted how important it was for the public to see meaningful, in-depth discussions of the policy matters which will shape the future. “This is not a reality show. This is reality.

As the moderator was wrapping up he joked with both of the candidates and the subject of doing a two person format with Mitt Romney came up. He said, “I’ll bet you ten thousand dollars he doesn’t show up.”

Following the event, Huntsman said he’d consider Gingrich as a running mate, and added that he’d like to participate in other similarly-structured debates and challenged other candidates, specifically Mitt Romney, to one-on-one issues-focused discussions.

“Based on Speaker Gingrich’s excellent performance, he is now definitely, on my short list for people to consider for vice-president of the United States,” said Huntsman, immediately following the debate.

“We’re always looking for winners and losers in these things, but I think the winners might be the American people because they actually got a sense of the world views on display by these candidates,” said Huntsman. “I think that’s a good thing and a rare opportunity in these formats … as opposed to always defining things by who is up, who is down, who wins, who loses, they actually get a little good information, which they can use to assess and analyze what the candidates are made up of, and what they may then pursue in terms of policies.”

Overall, it was a brilliant format and anyone watching cannot help but notice the quality and depth of knowledge of both men. Both men were winners merely by their participation in the debate and the quality uninterrupted time afforded by the format. Huntsman was perhaps the winner in terms of debate result, as it allowed anyone watching to see how intelligent this man actually is; he articulated his points throughout in a very polished and accomplished fashion.

I’ll go on record now and say, if Romney & Gingrich destroy each other in the primaries. Voters looking for a capable, knowledgeable alternative to President Obama would do no harm giving Huntsman a second look regardless or whether people consider him too moderate, too liberal or too conservative at present. People should be elected on ability and have the confidence that their vote could be valued as an investment in America’s future. Jon Huntsman on the evidence would represent a very sound investment for any Republican, Democratic or Independent voter.

Definitely the most enjoying debate of the election season to date, it is a pity one of the networks don’t organise a head-to-head between two candidates each night in the lead up to the Iowa caucus. This would enable all ten candidates to be afford quality time talking about the issues and not throwing out cheap shots at each other.