Slow Political Poison Passively Given at Boca Raton

[L] Gov. Mitt Romney [C] moderator Bob Schieffer  [R] President Barack Obama

This year’s cycle of Presidential debates have all been influential and informative, but in different ways that one would expect.  This is especially true about the slow poison that was passively administered in Boca Raton, Florida.

During the first debate in Denver, unanimous opinion was that Republican Presidential Nominee Governor Mitt Romney (R-MA) won a decisive victory against Democrat Nominee President Barack Obama (D-IL).  Focus groups dramatically swung towards the challenger.  It seemed that the distorted image of Romney which the Obama 2012 campaign spent $100 million in early television advertising went to waste compared to many voters first unfiltered view of candidate Romney

After being buoyed by Vice President Joe Biden’s (D-DE) brash performance in the Vice Presidential debate against GOP VP Nominee Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI 1st), it seems that Obama advisors wanted the President to seem less somnolent.  So the Presidential Townhall debate in Richmond was a Rock ‘Em Sock ‘Em affair. Alas, it seemed like Mr. Romney was fighting tag team against both Mr. Obama and moderator Candy Crowley, as the “moderator” interrupted Romney 28 times and the President only nine times, yet Obama spoke for three additional minutes.


In addition, Crowley chose to violate her agreed upon position as moderator and played real time (and wrong) instant fact checker.   At a key moment, when Mr. Romney pressed Mr. Obama about his Rose Garden statements regarding not calling the action in Libya an act of terrorism, Crowley verbally pushed her way in and insisted that the President had called it an act of terror.




Yet during post debate interviews, the CNN journalist admitted that she was wrong and that Governor Romney was right on the point.

Everyone expected that the Foreign Policy debate in Boca Raton, Florida would concentrate on the Benghazi blunder and candidates trading barbs.  In fact, Boca Raton debate Moderator Bob Schieffer started the candidate forum with a couple of wide open questions about Benghazi seemingly  begging for blood to be drawn.  But Mitt Romney did not take the bait.  In fact, he pretty much deferred that issue.  Later in the forum, Romney expressed support for some of Obama’s foreign policy as he differentiated is own vision to defend democracy and pursue peace through strength.

Many conservatives stomachs churned, suspecting that their standard bearer was blowing it.  But after a few rounds of questioning, it dawned on many right-leaning political observers that Romney’s deferential debate performance was what Bill Sammon would call Strategery .  Saturday Night Live mocked Republican Presidential candidate then Governor George W. Bush (R-TX) for being a bumkin and a Bush who was prone to mispronounce words, despite Ivy League educations.  The “43" Administration used Strategery as an inside joke for meetings, taking the press misestimation of their skills to their advantage.

Foreign policy is the domain of Presidents and not challengers.  So when going toe-to-toe with President Obama, Romney was likely to be diminished by a reply by the President “Well, I was in the situation room” as well as “This deals with classified matters” and “We can not comment on a matter in which we are still investigating.”  None of those potential retorts would do the challenger any good.

The tag team phenomenon of moderator Crowley just so happening to have the Rose Garden transcript and master debater Obama suggesting to Crowley to read the transcript leads some cynics to conclude that it was a convenient set up.  So Bob Schieffer’s begging for blows about Benghazi might have been a trap. Had Romney engaged about Libya, he would have muddied the waters and partisans would claim “He’s playing politics with a tragedy.”   So to use a football analogy, it was wise to play prevent football and punt on such challenges.


Partisan Democrats would declare President Obama the winner no matter what in the third debate. So the surrogates in the spin room were anxious to say that Obama had won on points with all of his jabs.  Perhaps.  But that missed the point of Romney’s strategery.  Although politics is my favorite contact sport, it is not won or lost on the best out of three debate scores.




During the first debate, Romney was iconoclastic, shattering the false image that the Obama campaign had peddled against him during the summer.  At the second debate, Romney demonstrated that he could go toe-to-toe arguing with his opponent.  That is important, as the incumbent was fighting on a level playing field with the challenger, mooting many inherent advantages of incumbency.  For the third debate, Romney’s mission was to not make unforced errors and appear statesman-like.

I likened the debate to a slow political poison given in Boca Raton because Romney’s subtle strategy was not to win the debate but to win votes.  By appearing reasonable and giving credit to good parts of Obama’s foreign policy, he burnished his credentials of being bipartisan and reasonable. By not engaging in pointed attacks while standing for what Dennis Prager would call Americanism as well as echoing President Ronald Reagan’s peace through strength, he appealed to undecided voters (many of whom could be called Reagan Democrats) as well as women who recoil from too much conflict.  And then there was Mr. Obama’s debate demeanor.

President Obama relished taking the fight to Mr. Romney by interrupting him numerous times, using sneering condescension in addressing his opponents issues and demonizing his challenger.  Of course, this is indicative of the Obama 2012 campaign, which has been all about ad hominem attacks rather than presenting a real second term agenda.  The negative message constantly coming from Obama 2012 materials is in marked contrast to the Hopey Changey meme from 2008.  Even if that is the Democrat’s Presidential Re-Election strategy, it is a mistake for Obama to be that messenger, particularly in an event when he is side-by-side to his opponent.  The dirty work is typically left to Vice Presidents, who’s essential qualities typically  include breathing, carrying his home state and doing dirty work on the stump for his boss.

Obama’s punchy performance might have rallied the base (again) but did not expand his supporters. Obamatons, and seemingly the Boca Raton Press Corps, cheered when Mr. Obama hit back on charges that the Obama Administration has been rapidly cutting the US Naval Fleet.  Candidate Obama snarkily retorted about horses and bayonets.



Politically, this was acting stupidly on electoral college politics.  Virginia is a swing state and the Virginia Tidewaters have lots of military voters.  Even if the military votes are waylaid this cycle, there are lots of veterans and military spouses that will still be going to the polls who would neither appreciate dramatically cutting the fleet nor the derisive tone of the reply.

While it can not readily be proven, I believe that Romney’s reticence to get down and dirty during the Boca Raton debate threw Obama’s briefing binder out the window.  It is reasonable to think that Obama was ready to smack down his opponent on nuances of Benghazi and then sell the narrative that Republican Romney was a warmonger. When Romney did not use the anticipated playbook, Obama had to improvise, which deprived him of much (but not all) of his practiced retorts.

Although Romney projected less aggression in Boca Raton, he was not acquiescent to Obama. The Apology Tour jab was a good example.  While Mr. Obama denied that he went on an Apology Tour in 2009 and basically to check the transcript that sorry was the hardest word, the public understood it as such.  This allowed Romney to springboard by noting that we did not dictate to the world but that we freed the world from dictators. This was done in a genteel and not overwrought manner while still scoring points.

 Romney’s strategic passivity and bipartisanship made Romney appear statesman-like and almost the incumbent whereas Obama’s flailing aggression looked desperate and had the vibe of a challenger rather than the incumbent. Focus groups on various networks came to the surprising conclusion that Obama scored on points but Romney tended to win over undecided voters by being a statesman.  Polling coming out after the debate shows some narrowing in the horse race, but the big gap (16%) that Romney had amongst female voters has evaporated.  So much for the War on Women meme.


What would really be instructive is likeability factor.  Even though President Obama’s national overall approval rate hovers at 47% no matter how they tweak the survey sample, Mr. Obama has consistently topped 50% on likeability.   That may be an extension of the Hope and Change phenomenon that sounded nice and people inserted whatever they wanted.  In the last month, the Obama 2012 campaign has capitalized on killing Big Bird attack and the puerile Binders Full of Women gimmick to besmirch Romney.  Most of that snark was by surrogates or on the campaign hustings.

 As the third debate went on, Obama fed upon the bile building up in his antagonistic answers.  So the first part of his “In the Navy” answer sounded like a reasonable (but mistaken point) about horses and bayonets and newer technologies.  But then Obama went further and sarcastically noted: There are these things called aircraft carriers.”  That sort of condescension only sells with the truly convicted.  It impeaches the aura of the good graces of likeability which remained with him from the prior campaign.  The sarcastic “Aircraft Carrier” trope probably made Obama feel pretty good and rang well in his ears but to females watching it made Obama sound petty and petulant.

It is ironic that by Romney not engaging in the muck about Benghazi, it was spoken about more after the debate.  Now that journalists from CBS News and Fox News Channel have the real time communications during the Benghazi attack, the media who chose not to be Obama stenographers can report on the horrific response without denouncing it as a partisan Republican attack.

So by being somewhat passive, classy seeming informed and giving approval to his opponent’s foreign policy successes, Romney seemed bipartisan, statesmanlike and positive while protecting his political position.  This change in tactics causes the real Obama to come out once he ran out of scripted one liners.  So a haughty, petulant and unscripted Obama was on display for voters to see vis-a-vis Romney.

I watched the debate with a bunch of right minded partisans gathered for the Battleground State Talkers Tour event.  Assuredly, the audience would have preferred seeing a pugilistic performance from Romney.  But in my estimation, Romney’s Boca Raton debate performance was a slow poison for his opposition. It was not satisfying for someone who’s favorite contact sport is politics, but I think that is was a successful tactic to take.   In less than two weeks, it should become clear if the “strategery” was successful in electing the 45th President of the United States.

h/t: A.F. Branco
     Gary McCoy

Whoopsie--The View on Whoopi's Failed Mormon Smear

Ann Romney taped an appearance on ABC's The View. When the visit got serious (4:14 mark of video), panelist Whoopie Goldberg posed a poignant question to the prospective First Lady:

WHOOPI GOLDBERG: As first lady, if you get the job, it’s going to entail a lot of things, and one of those things is going to be talking to the mothers whose children are coming home in bags, you know, from wars. Now, I know -- I believe that your religion doesn’t allow you to go fight.

ANN ROMNEY: No, that's not correct. We have many, many members of our faith that are serving in armed services.

GOLDBERG: Okay, um, I say that because when I read about your husband, what I had read, and maybe you can correct this is that the reason that he didn’t serve in Vietnam was because it was against the religion. That’s what I read.

 ROMNEY: No, that's not correct. He was serving his mission and you know my five sons have also served missions. None served in the military.

It seems that Ms. Goldberg confused the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints (a.k.a. Mormons) with Quakers, Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists or other small American Christian pacifist oriented denominations.

 Mrs. Romney was astute to highlight all of her sons being called to mission (through their church) which helped mature them and them better citizens. It tacitly acknowledged Mormon culture while accentuating the virtues from the practice.

 Perhaps Goldberg was not at all ignorant about Latter Day Saint practice of faith.  Her query gave credence to the chicken hawk charge (never served in uniform) as well as implying strange religious practices while conjuring notions of body bags from future American "aggression".

Whoopi's whoopsie strikes me as a ham-handed attempt to play the Mormon card.  This sort of ad hominem attack seems like a desperate ploy to bolster a faltering incumbent by scaring unconvicted low-information voters with borderline religious bigotry.  It could also have been foray to bog the Romney campaign to explain subtleties of Mormon theology, which can differ with most traditional Christian creeds.

Of course, First Lady Michelle Obama and President Obama got comparative softball questions when they were last on the View on September 25th, rather than meet with any world leaders after addressing the United Nations.   That was when "Barack" said that he was just eye candy. Yet that fluff View interview still made some important news because Mr. Obama's careful statement about the attack on the Benghazi consulate contradicts the supposed Rose Garden "Act of Terrorism" claim at the Hofstra debate.




Obviously the producers of "The View" were remiss at doing background briefs for their coterie of star chatters.  But progressive minds also seemed to have missed the memo from Chicago about now eschewing negative advertising.  Karl Rove observed that the Obama campaign has pulled negative ads in swing states and now is only showing positive pieces touting Obama's accomplishments.  It seems that the debates have wrecked $100 million negative advertising blitz on opponent Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA).   Maybe the Obama campaign is relying upon their media surrogates to continue doing the dirty work as well as the puerile social media Binders of Women meme.

h/t: Real Clear Politics

Using Our Brains When Voting

A couple of days ago, the Obama 2012 Campaign posted a plucky piece on Tumblr urging its youthful users to vote with their “Lady Parts."

After this unorthodox "Lady Parts" appeal for support drew outraged criticism, the post was quickly withdrawn and the campaign maintained that it was not properly vetted. But considering the emphasis that the DNC convention put on protecting “Women’s Health Services” (read abortion on demand), even so far as to give Georgetown Law School graduate Sandra Fluke a prime time speaking spot to tout free contraception in Obamacare.

 This was not an unexpected bundle of joy. The Lady Parts campaign was trying to be hip and capitalize on a wedge issue on social media site. When it became inconvenient, it was aborted. Sound familiar?

 While the Obama “Lady Parts” campaign is gone, it is not forgotten. Social media sharing sites also posted this retort:

 Maybe after Obama’s disastrous debate performance in Denver, it is reasonable to expect the endangered incumbent to come out swinging and try to rally the base by trumpeting these comfortable liberal social policy memes which worked so well in the past.

 But now that Romney and Obama share a stage which gives them equal stature, it is not as easy to demonize an opponent who can not make a timely response. Now that people are paying attention to the Presidential race in earnest, I expect that voters will use their brains when exercising their franchise.

Preparing for the First Presidential Debate in Denver

Tonight is the first of the three scheduled head-to-head debates between incumbent Democrat President Barack Obama and Republican Presidential nominee Governor Mitt Romney (R-MA).  These debates are the only times that voters are able to see both candidates on the same stage.  So it is not just the candidate’s articulation of the issues, but also how they comport themselves.


Depending upon the debate rules, these encounters can sometimes seem more like side-by-side press conferences.  This is less likely when there are only two candidates on stage.  Moderator Jim Lehrer who formerly anchored PBS’s NewsHour before retiring  have promised that the first three segments will touch on the economy, with the remaining questions to center on health care, governance and the role of government. 

Both candidates have been engaged in several days of intense debate preparation and have tried to lower expectations.  Governor Romney engaged in twenty debates among Republican Presidential nominee challengers during the primaries, whereas President Obama has not needed to verbally spar since October 2008.  Still the public believes that Mr. Obama’s oratory abilities will outshine the GOP challenger.  

Both White House and Obama 2012 campaign spokesmen have strived to lower expectations for incumbent candidate Obama.  Aside from being rusty in the practice of debating, the Obama camp has also floated the idea that the President is too busy handling pressing situations in the Middle East to concentrate on debate preparation. Maybe Obama PR flack Jen Psaki meant the Maghreb, where an Ambassador and three special operations soldiers were assassinated in Benghazi, Libya on 9/11/2012.  Well, Mr. Obama has been spending several days at the Westin Lake Las Vegas resort, which has both a Mid East theme AND a golf course–perfect!  

Alas, Mr. Obama revealed that he found debate preparation to be a drag.   Barack Obama’s debate preparations has been aided by former White House Communications Director Anita Dunn, who as also aided with First Lady Michelle Obama’s “Let’s Move” Campaign.  So perhaps if the President goes off script, Mr. Obama may refer to Ms. Dunn’s favorite political philosopher–Mao Tse Tung. 

People often do not remember many policy points from debates, but impressions drawn from debates influence their outlooks.  The Lamestream Media has spent the better part of September trumpeting perceived flaws by candidate Romney, including the old footage of the 47% and parroting Obama talking points that Romney shoots first and aims later on the violence in Egypt and Libya.  Even though all of the Presidential debates are chocked full of liberal questioners, history has shown that Mr. Romney’s appearance on the same stage as the President will elevate his stature among the electorate. 

[L] John Kennedy  [R] Richard Nixon during 1960 debate

Appearance can definitely matter.  Although those who listened to the 1960 Presidential debates on the radio thought that then Vice President Richard Nixon bested then Senator John Kennedy (D-MA).  But Nixon’s pasty pallor (he had been hospitalized) along with his five-o’clock shadow and grey suit did not look good on black-and-white television.  Hence TV viewers thought that Kennedy won.  

[L] George HW Bush, [C] Ross Perot [R] Bill Clinton in '92 debate 

During the 1992 Richmond Virginia Townhall Presidential Debate, viewers took note of President George Herbert Walker Bush looking down at his watch during the debate.  This gesture was intended to remind the moderator that then Governor Bill Clinton (D-AK) had exceeded his allotted time.  But the public interpreted this as detachment and reflected poorly upon the incumbent’s re-election candidacy.  






And who can forget Vice President Al Gore’s bizarre  behavior during debates, crowding his opponent then Governor George W. Bush (R-TX) during town hall forums exchanges and giving audible sighs during his opponents answers.  Viewers did not put their disdain in a “lock box”.  In fact, it was so laughable that Saturday Night Live mocked it.

SNL Parody of 2000 Debate [L] fake Al Gore [R] Fake George W. Bush 

There is a theory which postulates that likability is a key factor for people on choosing Presidents.  After all, once elected, the President of the United States is in our homes every day through television appearances.  Thus  low-information voters want someone who will not be too irritating to see every day. 

1976 Debate [L] Jimmy Carter [R] Gerald Ford

Another thing that people take away from debates are flubs.  During the 1976 Presidential Debates, incumbent President Gerald R. Ford claimed that “Poland was free”.  What he meant to say is that the Polish peoples’ spirit of freedom could never be taken away.  But that bad quote was out there and did not help Ford win.  

1988 Debate [L] George H.W. Bush [R] Michael Dukakis

Then there are gaffes which may contain the right answer but are instances that the candidate does not successfully sell himself.  In 1988, Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis gave a straight but dispassionate answer on the Death Penalty when he was asked how he would feel if his wife was raped. Later, Dukakis gave a legalese reply to a question about a proposed Flag Burning Amendment which some pundits claimed won the hearts and minds of fourteen lawyers while losing three million votes.  

Viewers tend to remember zingers in debates, which often are prescripted but a candidate needs to be able to sell it.  In 1984, the 73 year old incumbent President Ronald Reagan had a shaky appearance in the first Presidential debate, which raised concerns among the media that the old man may not have been up to continue the job.  So as the second debate began, Mr. Reagan famously promised not to exploit former Vice President Walter Mondale’s youthfulness and inexperience in the campaign.

1984 Presidential Debate  [L] Ronald Reagan jokes with [R] Walter Mondale

That bon mot caused even Mr Mondale to crack up, which allayed any concerns and sealed the deal with the electorate. 

For those of you who consider politics to be just infotainment, you might consider the drinking game for the Presidential debates


As fun as that sounds, that won't be the way that I watch the Denver Debate.  I will be covering the debate by live blogging it under the  CalamityDC alias on Twitter using the #DenverDebate hashtag.  

I encourage people interested in public affairs to join in the live comments.  It used to be that political junkies would wait to watch the spin-rooms after the main event to listen to pundits tell you what to think.  Now with the advent of social media, parroting the pontification of pundits is unnecessary and your real time opinions can be shared.

Overcoming Obama's Invincibly Ignorant

It is amazing that in just over 37 months of the Obama Administration, unemployment rates have been officially above 8% during that entire time period (and significantly higher if one includes discouraged workers that dropped out of the workforce).  Congress passed a $837 Billion Stimulus (a.k.a. "Porkulous") package to abate the rising unemployment rate to no avail, while raising the National Debt by over $4 Trillion in just three years.  Moreover, since President Obama was elected, gasoline prices have more than doubled nationally.  But the Obama energy policy has generally prohibited drilling on federal lands or off-shore and rejecting the Keystone XL pipeline from Canadian petroleum sources . Instead, the Obama Administration continues to bolster green energy initiatives, which results in wasteful subsidies for mature but inefficient alternative energy producers, or making bets on new technologies that supplement crony capitalism, a la Solyndra.

Despite these damning facts, Obama continues to poll support in the low 40s%, which roughly corresponds to the number of registered Democrats.  Some cynical political observers liken Obama's undying support to being akin to an Obama Cult of Personality. There was the meme in 2008 of treating Barack Obama as the Chosen One or a political messiah. 

Right wing partisans have long recognized Barack Obama's 2008 campaign of Hope and Change as cult of personality propaganda.  Viral videos capitalized on the funky hard rock fusion sounds of Living Color to score their point.

Glenn Beck went further, by composing an Obama Anthem to the tune of the Soviet National Anthem (Song of Stalin).

But the American people spoke in November 2008 and sent the candidate whose claims to fame were being a community organizer and a United States Senator for two years to the Oval Office.

Even after three years of Obama in power, Obama seeks to blame shift to his predecessor while banking on a perpetual campaign of class warfare to gain re-election.  These themes can be seen in  director David Guggenheim's adoring campaign video "The Road We've Traveled" (narrated by Tom Hanks).

While promoting his upcoming campaign agiprop film, Guggenheim was asked by CNN's Pierce Morgan on whether his film reveled any negatives about Obama.  Guggenheim's response was that there were too many positives to put into a 17 minute film.  This laughable response was followed by Guggenheim's admission that the director was in awe of Obama.

This star eyed response seems proto-typical of the block of Obama's invincibly ignorant who love the ideas espoused in the candidate of Hope and Change, but never consider the facts.  People may choose to believe in what they want, but that blind faith is aided by the Lamestream Media, which never seriously vetted Barack Obama and which serve as the White House stenographers instead of being a Press Corps.

There are several things which voters need to do to survive the onslaught of Obama-Zombies.  Firstly, do not give up hope, as it is not Zombieland-USA.   The Lamestream Media is wont to report polling in ways that are favorable to their interests.  Many of the polls cited probably have skewed questions or over-sample Democrats (or under-sample Independents)

Secondly, do not allow the opposition to succeed in Saul Alinsky tactics of framing the argument by smearing your opponent.  For instance, the HHS Contraception mandate is now being spun by Obama sycophants as being a war on womens' health with Georgetown Law School student/political agitator Sandra Fluke as its martyr.  The argument against the Obamacare HHS Qualified Health Plan Mandate should continue to be presented as an unprecedented and unconstitutional attack on the First Amendment's right of religious liberty.

Thirdly, Republicans must not allow themselves to be sidetracked by ad hominen, wedge issue attacks like outlawing contraception.  This is really a false flag attack by the media which deserves some response, but by lingering on the issue drives candidates off point and colors the candidate.  For instance, former Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) is being tarred by the Contraception questions which give casual spectators of political theater the impression that he is just a social issues candidate, when he really has a strong blue collar Conservative economic platform that gets shunted to the side.  Not everyone can be as convincingly combative as Newt Gingrich during debates, but Gingrich's slap-down of Meet the Press host's David Gregory's extraneous lead question can generate earned media and inspire others to straighten up and fly right.

Lastly, keep hammering home the shortcomings of the Obama Administration.  The curtailment of basic liberties to accommodate Obamacare, the real pocket-book effects of encroaching environmental policies, the diplomatic fecklessness of Obama's State Department may not convince the invincibly ignorant to your camp, but they may not be motivated to go to the polls on election day. But by contrasting the Obama Administration's dubious record with a concise, concrete and positive platform, Independents can be inspired to walk over broken glass to exercise their franchise. While Republicans are engaged in an intense Presidential Primary fight, there can be a sense of disunity.  But disgruntled conservative partisans ought to remember Benjamin Franklin's entreaty: "We must all hang together or else we will all hang separately" in November as we contemplate FOUR MORE YEARS OF THIS?

Why Beauty Contests Can Matter in the GOP Primary Process

Former Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) won three Republican Presidential primary contests yesterday in Missouri, Minnesota and Colorado.  These were Santorum’s first victories since his surprising victory in the Iowa Caucuses which kicked off primary season.  But what does it mean?

Ex Sen. Rick Santorum after victories in MO, CO & MN

Critics can claim that yesterday’s GOP contests do not mean anything since there were no delegates at stake and some campaigns might not have pour full resources into the contests. Moreover, former Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA 6th)  did not even make the Missouri primary ballot. That fact might be construed as not being a true primary fight.

But these beauty contests should not be quickly dismissed as meaningless.  Santorum won decisive victories in the Missouri primary and the Minnesota Caucuses and bested former Governor Mitt Romney (R-MA) in the Colorado Caucuses.  This should give Santorum momentum going into Super Tuesday on March 6th when around 250 of the necessary 1144 delegates necessary for nomination are available.

The Santorum surge, as evidence in Missouri, Minnesota and Colorado, threatens a major premise for  Mitt Romney’s 2012 Presidential campaign–namely inevitability.  While there were no delegates on the line in Missouri, losing the Show Me State  primary 55% to 23% is embarrassing and questions Romney’s self assured position of being the eventual nominee.  In Minnesota, Romney placed in third place with 16% behind Representative Ron Paul (R-TX 24th) with 27.2% and the Caucus winner Santorum with 44.8%.  While the third place finish in Minnesota should have been humbling for Romney, what is more concerning is losing Colorado.  Although Santorum only beat Romney by a 40.2%-34.8% margin, Romney had put considerable resources in the Centennial State in anticipation of Colorado being a battleground state in the general election campaign.  Moreover, Romney beat Senator (and eventual GOP nominee) Senator John McCain (R-AZ) by a 60% to 18% margin in 2008.  So pondering psephologists want to know, what happened to Romney’s rocky mountain high in just four years.

Another way that Santorum’s victories in these beauty contests are instructive is seeing how a single conservative candidate fares against the alleged establishment moderate candidate Mitt Romney.  Newt Gingrich was not on the ballot in Missouri which enabled the head to head match-up and Santorum succeeded in coalescing the conservative vote.  Gingrich’s absence from the Show Me State ballot shows his lack of organization having practical effects.  But Newt was a candidate in the  Minnesota and Colorado caucuses yet he was a non-factor.  Again this could show the Gingrich campaign’s lack of organization, which is key in succeeding in caucuses.  But it might also reflect an abandonment of conservatives considering Newt as the non-Romney.  But the Gingrich press conference on Saturday after the Nevada caucuses might have stuck in Republican activists minds.  Newt was petulant, negative and obsessed about Mitt Romney.  This was not the campaign reboot which put Newt’s best foot forward.

Events also seem to have favored Santorum’s surge.  The HHS contraception mandate has boiled over among Catholics and Americans who value their First Amendment free exercise of religion rights.  There are sizeable Catholic populations in both Minnesota (28%) and Missouri (20%) so casting a one issue vote for a beauty contest is a natural way to send a message and vote with their hearts.

Santorum seems to have succeeded by being strategic by not competing in the expensive Florida primary or the Nevada Caucuses to score three big victories on one night.  Aside from the Maine Caucus on February 11th, there will be nearly three week hiatus until February 28th, when there is the Michigan and Arizona primaries.  At this time, it  is thought that Romney is positioned to do well in those primaries. Surprisingly, there is only one debate scheduled during this period, which does not help Gingrich stealing the spotlight with earned media.  Super Tuesday is spread out throughout the country, which will take some financial resources.  It will be fascinating to see if conservatives dub Santorum as the conservative choice and open their wallets to his campaign.

These Presidential primary beauty contests have been telling because they have focused melodramatic spotlights on their candidate. Santorum comes back from the dead (again) and surges into the top tier of candidates. It will be interesting if Santorum can stand up to scrutiny being one of the front runners. Santorum seemingly has relied on values voters support while appealing to what Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R-MN) labeled "Wal Mart" conservatives.  After the Santorum surge, he need to convince Tea Party types that they should trust their hearts and direct their principled constitutional support to the Santorum campaign rather than standing with Newt.

 Romney took some serious blows by these loses. If Romney can recover from this tubthumping, then he will be a stronger candidate. However, now that the mantle of inevitable has been lifted from his candidacy, he will have to develop convincing new rationales that convince his supporters. Newt has to figure out what is his objective. Is it realistic for Newt to try to hold on until the April 3rd Texas primary, especially if conservatives solidly gravitate towards Santorum? Is Newt’s aim to ruin things for the pretty boy, come what may for everyone else? Is Newt willing to force a long shot brokered convention scenario where he might lead the GOP to the promised land but not be the candidate going forward? And is Gingrich willing to tarnish his reputation and intellectual future with conservatives by continuing a scorched earth policy that either so damages Romney that he is crippled in the general or stay in the race which divides the sizeable conservative vote?

Only time will tell.  Like sands through the hourglass, these are the days of our lives.

Fallout from the Nevada Caucuses

On Saturday, Nevada held caucuses for the Republican Presidential nomination.  While the overall results were not shocking, but the fallout from the caucuses is shocking.  Mitt Romney scored a 51% victory in the 2008 cycle.  Some have speculated that Nevada’s 10% Mormon population would also help bolster his chances for the 2012 Nevada caucuses.  When the returns eventually came in a day and a half after the polls closed., Romney won 50.1% of the caucus vote, followed by former Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA 6th) with 21.1%,  Representative Ron Paul (R-24th) trailing with 18.8% and former Senator Rick Santorum scoring only 10% of caucus support.

In the run up to the caucuses, real estate magnate and The Apprentice TV show host Donald Trump announced with great fanfare who he endorsed.  There were rumors that Gingrich might have gotten the “You’re Hired” nod from the Donald.  But in the end, Romney won Trump’s endorsement.  This was intriguing as unlike Newt, Mitt Romney refused to participate in Trump’s scuttled debate on the Ion Network in December. But Trump likes going with a winner and he figured that he could exploit the moment and get on the right side at the same time.

Even though this was a West Coast contest with later start times, the delays in tabulating the results is embarrassing.  Not having 75% of the caucus results 18 hours after the polls close is stunning.  There was also controversy associated with some of the late caucuses.  Some have cited the influence of casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, there was a caucus held after sundown to accommodate Orthodox Jewish voters.  But some potential participants were interrogated as to whether they were taking part in the late caucus because of Sabbath observation.

Another interesting side effect from the Nevada vote is the failure of Ron Paul to do better in the caucuses.  Nevada is a Western state which embraces libertarian values (gambling, legalized prostitution). The Paul campaign dumped $3 million into Nevada.  Moreover, Paulistinians are enthusiastic youthful supporters who seemingly would be amenable to participating in caucuses.  Had Paul placed in second, it would have generated significant headlines but placing in third generated no momentum for the Ron Paul Revolution.

After experiencing Gingrich’s  gracelessness in ignoring campaign protocol last week in Florida, Romney was wise not to wait for Newt’s concession call before Mitt made his victory speech.    Romney gave a short but spirited stemwinder speech to thank  600 supporters at the Red Rocks Casino on the Las Vegas Strip. Romney’s remarks focused all of his firepower on not re-electing President Obama. Most of Romney’s  rhetoric was standard stump speech material, with priory pithy philippics like “Obama’s friends in the faculty lounge” and “Our blueprint is the Constitution of the United States.  We will build an America where ‘hope’ is a new job with a paycheck, not a faded word on an old bumper sticker."  But the Romney campaign added a line that spoke about protecting American’s religious liberty from governmental encroachments.  This strong reaction to the HHS Secretary Sebelius’ free contraception mandate for all qualifying health plans is a trifecta.  The line is a principled attack against Obamacare, which deflects any connection with Romneycare.  In addition, the issues will make inroads with Catholics threatened by the measure. Furthermore, it provides cover for Romney will Evangelicals  who might be skeptical about Mitt’s Mormon faith.

Newt Gingrich held a remarkable event after placing second in Nevada.  Gingrich pointedly switched his appearance from a large (but not filled) ballroom into a smaller chamber. The optics made it look like a small hotel seminar room filled with reporters and a smattering of true believers.   Instead of giving a speech thanking his caucus supporters, Newt gave a press conference in which he sounded  whiney, petulant and fixated on Mitt Romney.  The Gingrich campaign had led the press to believe that Newt’s presser would reveal a major change in campaign strategy by going positive (again).

x

It appeared that Gingrich was unsettled by campaign scuttlebutt which he thought came from the Romney campaign that Newt was poised to drop out of the race.  But the reporters were treated to a litany of familiar charges against his primary rival.  Gingrich effortlessly labeled Romney as a candidate who was pro-abortion, pro-gun control, pro-tax increase candidate of the establishment that  George Soros would approve.  Reporters chuckled when they questioned about Mitt Romney getting inside Gingrich’s head.  Newt offered a truculent reply wondering if the questioner had a psychology degree.  But almost all of Gingrich’s answers revolved around Romney.  There was no mention of the new Contract with America that Newt spouted in his Florida non-victory speech.

Newt returned to vaunting his debating prowess, challenging Romney to a debate anytime and anywhere, however Gingrich did not suggest a Lincoln Douglass debate, nor did he stipulate whether the audience needed to applaud.

It was interesting how far into the tall grass Gingrich got in answering beat reporters questions. Gingrich’s allusion about Romney being “endorsed” by George Soros may bolster Newt’s 25% support among strong conservatives and 33% of the strong Tea Party vote as shown from entrance polls, but it will cause blank stares from most voters.  It was curious how much Newt was willing to publically talk about his ersthwhile strong SuperPAC supporter Sheldon Adelson, as his frankness could quicken the casino magnets gravitation towards Romney.  But such public discussions of SuperPAC support could be considered coordination and be in violation of FEC campaign law.

Gingrich insisted that he could not run a positive campaign because his main opponent lied about him during the debates and outspent him.  These excuses undercut Newt’s conceit that he would be the best opposition to Obama.  If Newt is such a master debater, he should have been able to perry against perceived midrepresentations, either during the debate or in the spin room afterwards.  Instead, Gingrich has complained about the lack of audience participation in the NBC debate.  As for being outspent by his opponents, it reveals two fundamental deficiencies about Gingrich’s campaign strategy.  Firstly, important parts of a presidential campaign are organization and fundraising.  Newt has made the necessity of running a shoe string campaign using earned media from public forums into a virtue. But Newt’s reliance on a practically pro se defense of his record does not require his opponents to tie their hands behind their backs.  Moreover, if Gingrich is now being outspent by Romney, imagine his consternation when the Obama re-elect machine and associated SuperPACs start their barrage against the Republican nominee.

The gathered reporters pressed Newt about rumors of running a positive campaign. Gingrich demurred noting that a totally positive campaign did not work in Iowa.  Besides, Gingrich mused that the Lamestream Media would not cover him if he had just a positive message.  This was a strategic mistake.  The post caucus speech was being covered live by news channels. Newt managed to make waves by sounding angry in New Hampshire and waxing grandiousley about a new Contract With America in his Florida non-victory speech.  Gingrich had live television coverage and he chose to whine about Romney for most of the time.  It was a wasted opportunity, which cost Newt even more because of his campaign's reliance on earned media.

To be fair, Gingrich did have one marquee moment during his post Nevada Caucus event.  When the subject of how Catholics reacted to the HHS birth control mandate, Gingrich first offered a sarcastic response that  Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA 6th) knows more than a litany of Catholic bishops.  But Gingrich quickly revisited the question and gave a spirited, constitutional rejoinder which echoed defiance of this assault on the First Amendment.

While the Gingrich presser might not have had the Dean Scream soundbite, the defensive posture, the obsession with his opponent and using obscure references at what traditionally would be a rally seemed like the dramatic self inflected wounds which political observers have been expecting.  Even though the Minnesota and Colorado caucuses are on Tuesday along with the Missouri beauty contest, the press from the Super Bowl might shield Newt from the fallout of Newt’s unfortunate yet iconic campaign moment after the Nevada Caucuses.

Exiting Florida with its Decisive Primary Vote

Former Governor Mitt Romney (R-MA) scored a decisive victory in the Florida primary, winning 46% of the GOP vote, followed by former Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA 6th) at 32%.  Exit polls revealed that Romney carried nearly every demographic group.  But there were two striking data points from surveys of Florida voters. Firstly, 2/3rds of Sunshine State voters said that the debates mattered.  Most strikingly, the exit polls indicated that Romney carried the female vote by a 61% to 29% margin.

These results are a stark contrast to ten days earlier at Newt’s Sweet Caroline victory in which Gingrich bested Romney by a 40% to 29% margin in the Palmetto primary.   The internal numbers from South Carolina exit polls showed that Gingrich decisively carried the female vote as well as those who thought that debates mattered.

This significant swing of 25 points must be considered in the context of time and place as well as what happened on the ground.   Newt has premised his revived campaign on his prowess in debate performances.   Gingrich had two stellar debate appearances in South Carolina that garnered standing ovations from the audiences.  Moreover, Gingrich used jujitsu on the messy marital hit piece to rail against the media and personal attacks.  Since there was only a couple of days between the memory of the standing ovations and casting ballots, emotions seem to have swayed the voters.  Moreover, it is worthy to think that voters wanted to send a message against a perceived media hit piece along with supporting a self described Reagan conservative.

South Carolina is a relatively small state which does not have expensive media markets. Politics in the Palmetto State can be effectively conducted by retail politics.   Moreover, South Carolina has an open primary, where independents and others can change their registration to participate.  That may somewhat skew the results, particularly exaggerating the strength of libertarian leaning Rep. Dr. Ron Paul (R-TX 24th).

Florida is quite a different field of battle.  Florida is a large state with ten media markets, so a ground game is insufficient and competing in the Sunshine State is quite expensive.  This requires organization and financing, both of which put Gingrich at a significant disadvantage to the better organized and financed Romney.  The Romney campaign and its SuperPAC spent around $13 million in ads in Florida, which outspent Newt’s forces by 3 to 1.

Florida is a closed primary, so it was more difficult for party crossers to make mischief.   Furthermore, Florida had extended voting, which minimized the effect of a candidate peaking, as Gingrich did in slamming Jon King at the CNN Battle for the South Debate.

Before one cynically concludes that a well financed candidate like Romney “bought” Florida with negative ads, one must account for the primacy of debates and how Gingrich did not deliver that vote in the Sunshine State.   Newt did not score points with the audience during the NBC Florida debate. Consequently, Gingrich threatened not to participate in future candidate forums unless the crowd was allowed to react, effectively being televised pep rallies.  But during the CNN Florida Debate, former Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) seemingly stole Newt’s thunder and Gingrich did not stand out.  Moreover, Romney adapted a more combative stance during these debates, which both took the fight to his GOP challengers as well as to President Obama. Hence, it makes sense that these latest debate performances informed Floridians as they cast their primary ballots.

Of course, campaigning mattered.  Gingrich made headlights when he was positioning himself for votes along Florida's hard hit Space Coast by boasting that in Newt's second term, there would be an American Space Colony on the Moon. Moreover if this Moon colony had 13,000 voters, they could apply for statehood following the Northwest Territories model. When Newt was not floating such high concept campaign promises, Gingrich went hard and personal against his main opponent Romney.

Another factor that Florida voters strongly considered for their primary was electability.  More than half of primary voters thought that electability was crucial and 58% thought that Romney was most likely to beat President Obama whereas only three in ten voters thought the same of Gingrich.

The results showed Romney’s success with winning the Hispanic vote.  In Florida’s 2008 primary, Romney only took 14% of the Hispanic vote but this time around he took a majority.   As for the Cuban-American vote, Romney improved his standing from 2008 from 7% to 57%, which was particularly evident in Miami-Dade County.  While Senator Marco Rubio steadfastly did not endorse anyone for the Florida primary, but Rubio did intervene against Spanish language ads which Newt’s attack campaign against Romney.  Rubio’s actions may have been as influential as the last minute endorsement by former Governor Charlie Crist’s (R-I-?) of Senator John McCain, which put him over the top in the Florida primary in 2008.  Obviously, Gingrich’s pandering to long term illegal alien grandmothers during the debates did not translate into votes.

The two data points which may give slight solace to the Gingrich campaign is that 33% of self described “very conservative” voters supported Newt over Mitt by 41% to 30%.  But for the 36% of  “somewhat conservative” voters opted for Romney over Gingrich by a 52% to 30%.  As for 35% of self labeled strong “Tea Party” supporters, they voted for Gingrich over Romney by a margin of 45% to 33%. Yet for the 30%  moderate “Tea Party” partisans, Romney beat Gingrich  by 50% to 28%.

Some may discount the Florida primary vote because there were fewer participants in the GOP contest in 2012 compared to 2008.  Perhaps this was due to the number of negative ads that were broadcast to stem the tide of Newt from his South Carolina victory.   The number of Jewish GOP primary voters dropped from 7% to 1% in four years.  Maybe this was influenced by a totally untrue dirty trick robo-call in South Florida supposedly from the Newt 2012 campaign which alleged that Romney forced holocaust victims to eat non-kosher food.  Gingrich claims that he knew nothing about the robo-call, yet he made the same accusation while campaigning on Monday.  In the end, that did not matter as Romney amassed more votes (46%) than Gingrich (32%) and Santorum (13%) combined.

Due to the decisive results, Romney delivered an early victory speech.  Some might have wondered why the victor did not wait for his opponents to concede first.  Well, if one listened to Newt’s speech calling for People Power and a new Contract with America, he did not really concede nor did his congratulate Romney’s victory.  But an insightful analysis by Hugh Hewitt concluded that Romney took to the air waves early in Florida because his speech would be carried live in drive time in Nevada, Colorado and Arizona, all of which will have contests in February.  That is the mark of a methodical problem solver, not a populist politician who is trying to (right) wing it.

Gingrich has pledged to fight on for the next five or six months, unless Romney drops out in the meantime.  Such a comment was mildly amusing to rally the troops, but it is a grandiose delusion after a 14% thumping and displaying a gracelessness that has not endeared himself to many of his political colleague. Newt’s mildly spoken call to arms may be continuing to enlist very conservative and strong tea party supporters to rally to a non-Romney candidate like Newt, but it is odd to use leftist leaning People Power framework to do so.   This is particularly ironic since Gingrich campaign account only has $1.2 million and much of the advertising muscle has come from SuperPAC support from one source, Las Vegas casino owner Sheldon Adelson.

Well, February is a time for Newt’s People Power to put up or shut up in Republican, as caucuses are all about grassroots support and organizing.  Do not be surprised if Paulistinian forces make a strong run in the Maine Caucus on Saturday and Santorum becomes the mainstream non-Romney in February. Not qualifying for the ballot in Virginia and Missouri makes it exceedingly difficult for Gingrich to win outright. Gingrich needs to be able to hold on until Super Tuesday on March 6th.  Then his only hope is to score a few victories and hope that enough non-Romney delegates can be garnered to prompt a convention fight in Tampa.

Some pundits wonder if Gingrich is toying with a third party candidacy.  Surely a right leaning historian would know how disastrous it would be to have such a vanity candidacy. But such a run requires financing and organization.

The spotlight may temporarily exit Florida after the primaries but it will be the host of the Republican Convention in August.   Moreover, the Sunshine State is a swing state that is key to a Republican victory.

h/t: HughHewitt

Talk Amongst Yourselves for Presidential Debates?

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (R-GA 6th) now seems to have a schizophrenic attitude towards debates in his run for the Presidency.

Gingrich made a virtue out of necessity after his Newt 1.0  Presidential campaign nearly imploded in June by going deeply into debt with advisors, private planes  and his ill-timed Greek vacation as the campaign ramped up.  Newt decided to make his mark by impressing voters with his virtuoso performances during debates.  Gingrich’s two Moments in the Sun during this Presidential run have been premised on strong debate performances.

Gingrich is so enamored with his intellect that he challenges his opponents, both for the nomination and in the abstract for the White House, to Lincoln Douglas styled debates.




Both Herman Cain and former Governor Jon Huntsman (R-UT) to one-on-one debates that were supposedly in the fashion of the Lincoln-Douglas paradigm.  Both of these lesser opponents to Gingrich agreed to the event  as it raised their own profiles as it gave the aura of gravitas.   As for the Gingrich-Huntsman “debate” it was actly a wonkish ninety minute love-in on foreign policy which barely needed a moderator.  The non-adversarial chautauqua was interesting for the range of nuanced answers about public policy minutia but it would be unlikely to hold the attention or influence the average voter.  Besides it is dubious that President Obama will agree to the challenge of seven three hour match ups in the fall, with or without telepromter.

What is curious is Gingrich’s petulance after the NBC’s “Rock Center” debate in Tampa  in which  moderator Brian Williams instructed the audience of 500 not to make nary a noise during the debate.  Now Gingrich is threatening not to participate in future debates if the audience was silenced. This seems hypocritical both due to his Huntsman “debate” and presuming that Newt’s policy prowess is so supreme.

Since I have a life, I failed to watch the 18th GOP Presidential debate.  But if Newt is threatening not to play in future debate scrums, it makes me think that the self-styled philosopher king was unhappy at the fact that he could score easy points by playing populist politics with his audience.  Gingrich often makes his mark in debates by railing against the Media Machine or snidely focusing his fire on the eventual opponent--President Obama.  Newt earned two standing ovations in a week by chafing against Juan Williams facile insinuation of racism  and later with John King echoing spousal slurs as the leading question at a debate.  Previously, Gingrich got plaudits from the audience by not taking the bait for GOP but rather chafing for a fight with President Obama.

Rather than rebuffing a lack of audience interaction in any debates, Republicans ought to choose their sponsors more wisely.  The nearly score of debates have been hosted by liberally inclined news organizations which want to embarrass Republicans or engage in trivialities.  Consider: the networks of NBC (MessDNC, CNBC or the liberally aligned NBC); CBS–the Cubic Zirconium network, ABC’s George Stephanopolis (who served as President Clinton’s first Communications Manager); and CNN’s grunting John King.  Given the importance of debates for Republicans during this Presidential cycle, why should the Lamestream Media effectively skew Republican’s choice to be the Presidential nomination standard bearer?

If an event is well moderated and is not playing a hostile game of Trivial Pursuit, audience interaction may not be necessary.  In fact, a vocal audience in Orlando where two audience members booed at question by a homosexual soldier was spun by the Lamestream Media that Republicans hate gays instead of recognizing that it was objections to a set-up question.  Paulistinians show up en-masse into debate audiences and give their beloved Rep. Dr. Ron Paul (R-TX 24th) the allusion of disproportionate support.

On the other hand, the electricity of an engaged audience can give an immediate gauge to how well a Presidential candidate is selling his message during a debate.  People seem to remember Newt’s masterful reproach of John King’s salacious messy marriage question due to the strong audience support.  But later in the same debate, Gingrich went to his Bain-ful (sic) attacks on Mitt Romney’s success in capitalism.  Those watching the debates could see how this line of attack fell flat with the in studio audience, but not surprisingly that did not make the highlight reel.

Considering both scenarios, there should be room for events between candidates that allow for audience engagement as well as muted debates.  If there is quality material, a laugh track is not necessary for a comedy which gives the viewer unstated “permission” to feel something.  In a similar vein, elevated and engaged debates need not necessarily have a vocal audience, but that that there is anything wrong with that.

As Gingrich has meteorically risen in the polls, he has gotten somewhat persnickety in campaigning. Gingrich campaigned on being Mr. Nice Guy when he had no money for attack ads.  Now that Newt's Super-PAC is being largely underwritten by casino magnets Sheldon and Marion Adelson, let the negative ads roll.  Newt has done well at rallying the troops during debates, but now is threatening not to participate unless he has his way.  Gingrich loved hammering Gov. Mitt Romney about financial disclosures but when Gingrich's “consulting” with Freddie Mac was questioned as being more than a $25,000 a month historian on retainer, Newt got petulant and somewhat flustered.  It feeds into a longstanding meme that Gingrich is a better underdog than the leader of the pack and recalls the “Cry Baby” moment with President Clinton on Air Force One when the Speaker was flying high on the power circuit  in 1995.

As Linda Richmond would say in Coffee Talk “I’m feeling verklempt. Talk amongst yourselves. I’ve already given you a topic”.