THE STUMP JANUARY 8, 2012
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
ROCHESTER, N.H. -- Four years ago, the Republican candidates for president met for a final debate before the New Hampshire primary. Mitt Romney had been the presumed frontrunner but was no longer -- he had been embarrassed by Mike Huckabee in Iowa and was facing a resurgent John McCain in New Hampshire. Yet his rivals could not resist going after him, even in his weakened state. They ganged up on Romney in a tag team, taking turns with their shots and cackling in glee whenever someone else landed a hit. A report from the time:
The fireworks started in the first minutes of the debate, which aired on ABC, when Romney trashed Huckabee's recent essay in Foreign Affairs magazine in which the former Arkansas governor criticized the Bush administration for having an "arrogant bunker mentality" on foreign policy. In response, Huckabee pushed back, accusing Romney of echoing a similar opinion last year and of supporting a "timed withdrawal" of troops from Iraq.
"Don't characterize my position," Romney warned.
"Which one?" Huckabee shot back.
And that wasn't the only venom of the night. When Romney went after McCain, accusing him of supporting amnesty for illegal immigrants (a charge Romney makes in one of his TV ads airing here in New Hampshire), the Arizona senator repeatedly denied the charge. "You can spend your whole fortune on these attack ads, my friend, but it still won't be true," McCain said, referring to the millions of his own dollars that Romney has pumped into his campaign.
McCain's line elicited a loud cackle downstage from Rudy Giuliani, who has clashed more than once with Romney over immigration. Fred Thompson, a mostly quiet presence in the debate, went after Romney a few seconds later on the issue. "Didn't you say Republicans were making a terrible mistake if they were separating themselves with President Bush on the illegal immigration issue?" Thompson asked. Romney said he'd been misquoted, which prompted McCain to jump back in. "You're always misquoted," McCain scoffed. "When you change positions on issues from time to time, you will get misquoted." From downstage, Giuliani laughed again, and Romney was visibly irritated, accusing McCain of "personal attacks."
But Romney didn't get much of a reprieve. A few minutes later, Giuliani piled on Romney, reminding the audience that nobody in the field has a perfect record on immigration--not even Ronald Reagan, who Giuliani called "the hero of our party." "Ronald Reagan did amnesty," Giuliani said. "I think he'd be in one of Mitt's commercials. This time, it was McCain who laughed.
Four years later, Romney actually is the frontrunner. He tied for first in the Iowa caucuses and instead of facing McCain back in New Hampshire returns to find only Jon Huntsman, who apparently left his charisma in a back alley somewhere in Guangzhou. Romney is going to become the nominee in a matter of a few weeks unless someone mounts some sort of sustained challenge. And instead, we get Saturday night's bizarre spectacle, in which the closest anyone came to a confrontation with him was Newt Gingrich's mild invocation of a Wall Street Journal column comparing the two mens' economic plans; Huntsman's even milder pushback against Romney's anti-China demagoguery, and Rick Santorum's shaky, if not fully Pawlentyesque, restatement of his case that Romney's business experience does not equal true leadership. That's it. The rest of the time was spent talking about contraception and gay marriage (thanks, George!) and listening to Ron Paul lecture us about debt liquidation. Consider: just three days before the New Hampshire primary, with Romney 25 points ahead in state polls, there was but a single glancing reference made to Romneycare, and no focus on his sundry flip-flops. Amazing.
After the debate, I drove over to Rochester in the Seacoast area, where Romney will tomorrow be auditioning one of his vice presidential possibilities, er, holding a primary campaign rally with Tim Pawlenty. On the way, I passed a Dunkin Donuts with a sign declaring that "pancake bites are back." Would it be too much to ask, non-Romney candidates, that tomorrow's breakfast debate on NBC include a few pancake bites? Or at least just a couple nibbles?
*Well, the non-Romneys got in a couple nips at Sunday morning's NBC debate in Concord, if not the full chomps they needed to. Check out my latest post for a report: http://is.gd/hKVeT8
4 comments
Can a Mormon win the Republican Party's nomination? Yes, as long as there are enough candidates not to expose the ceiling on the Mormon's support. At some point the non-Romneys must decide who among them will challenge Romney and the Mormon ceiling. From MacGillis's account of last night's debate, each of the non-Romneys is attempting to distinguish himself as that candidate (and none did a very good job of it). God has apparently spoken to Bachmann and advised her (or is it Her) to stand down, now if He would similarly speak to the rest of the non-Romneys, then we could have a real challenge to Romney. If He desn't speak up soon, however, the race may be over before it even begins. And come November, the country will have to choose between a Mormon and a secular (or is it Muslim) African American. We're doomed!
- rayward
January 8, 2012 at 8:24am
Some of the Republican candidates did attack Romney on NBC's Facebook Meet the Press debate Sunday morning. Gingrich, for one, talked about his 27.5-minute documentary exposing Romney's anti-American, crony-capitalist tenure at Bain that will be appearing soon. Obama doesn't have to do any research on Romney and Bain. Gingrich, hopefully, has done it for him.
- magboy47.
January 8, 2012 at 11:29am
I'm thinking of starting a band called The Non-Romneys.
- AaronW
January 8, 2012 at 4:45pm
aaronw: The NOTRomney Band :) Rick Perry plays a surprisingly fine piano, and mostly Beethoven. The Huntsman daughters do have a future on MTV :) I digress. Alec: you missed the point of George S on contraception. The center-right blogosphere is also dumping on George S for being silly. I am no fan of his, or of Debbie W-S, but here is why that exchange was so incredibly important, for the NOTRomneys, and the DNC, if Romney survives to get the GOP nomination: What I saw was a new "Mitt Fit" Testy, and ignorant, was the former governor of Massachusetts. No Presidential temperament. GOP can not trust Romney on judicial appointments if he is this ignorant (I expect Santorum to make the most of this in South Carolina because Santorum DOES know why Griswold is so important.) Dems are going to have fun with this level of complete ignorance, and another "Mitt Fit" I am no fan, but, Bravo, George Stephanapoulos! And, for once, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz is 100% correct in how she framed her critique. How can Mr. Romney claim he has a Harvard Law degree, and is so smart if he has NO CLUE about 1965 SCOTUS Griswold v CT. ? Mr. Romney has no clue that almost every state in the USA had Comstock Laws starting in the 1880's that banned contraception??? It took until 1965 and the SCOTUS to FINALLY make it legal for doctors in Connecticut to prescribe contraception to married (man+woman) couples. Testy, and ignorant, was the former governor of Massachusetts. The phrase "Banned in Boston" was coined when Margaret Sanger was arrested and dragged off the stage of a theatre, by the Boston police, for speaking about contraception, maybe about 1920. GOP can not trust Romney on judicial appointments if he is this ignorant. Dems are going to have fun with this level of complete ignorance, and another "Mitt Fit" And, I am not even a lawyer, nor a constitutional scholar. Discovered the history of the very-Victorian Comstock Laws that made contraception a criminal offense while doing a grad school U.S. history paper on how very prominent Manhattan Republican women supported Margaret Sanger's fight to get the New York legislature to repeal their Comstock Law from 1916-1925. Failing to get the law changed, these Republican women helped Sanger develop her judicial strategy that culminated in 1965 Griswold v CT. GOP can not trust Romney on judicial appointments if he is this ignorant. Dems are going to have fun with this level of complete ignorance, and another "Mitt Fit" Watch the video on mute, step back, and ask yourself if Mr. Romney has the temperament to be President. Only CEOs get away with THAT level of blustering insecurity. At Pajamas Media today, Roger Simon: "But if it does happen, I am relatively certain of one thing. There is one topic that if either party brings it up, he will be deemed a fool: contraceptives." New York 2010: ZERO enthusiasm for either gubernatorial candidate. NY Dems knew voter turnout would be driven by congressional contests. So, NY DEMS used Senator Kirstin Gillibrand's sattewide campaign to drive voter turnout in Manhattan, using "protecting women's reproductive rights" as major theme. How New York Medicaid is driving the state into bankruptcy was thus ignored in 2010. The DNC is ALREADY planning same strategy for the 2012 general. There is zero enthusiasm for Obama, and the Dems will use the Senate contests to drive turnout, and they are deliberately running as many woman as they can. Now the Dems can use "Mitt Fits", and his ignorance as a Harvard Lawyer who is truly ignorant of SCOTUS precedent (and US history), AND Bain's "locust capitalism" to destroy Romney. The GOP is handing the social issue divide on a silver platter to the Dems. My prediction is that Huntsman will surge and Romney will get below 35% in NH, and will then be limping into South Carolina. Kind of interesting that Dr. Paul says he will forgo Florida, and focus on caucus states. Dr. Paul is the real "Manchurian candidate" - you watch - he is setting this all up for Rand Paul, maybe even for 2012. Yes, I am still following Perry, but now it is more fun to watch how all four candidates are all trying to change the trajectories of both Romney, and Paul. I actually miss Bachmann, but much better debates when it gets down to six.
- K2K
January 9, 2012 at 10:06am