Newt’s opponents are clobbering him on the air with an avalanche of negative ads. He has no money to respond (even with positive ads) or surrogates to defend him. And maybe that’s all that matters. But I still felt like Gingrich did better in this debate …
Romney tries to persuade on the level of factual truth. Gingrich goes straight for emotional truth. This is a way, come to think of it, in which Romney is like a Democrat. It’s very Al Gore, or John Kerry, that style. It doesn’t break through. Gingrich breaks through.
I think Bachmann briefly had Gingrich on the ropes. His claim that lobbying for Freddie Mac was a business like any other rang very hollow. But Gingrich recovered his poise, delivering several crowd-pleasing answers about liberal judges running amok, and Obama losing his marbles on Keystone. I certainly don't think Newt said anything zany enough, or looked riled enough to lose his lead. So that, in effect, makes him the victor, with an honourable mention for Bachmann.
Gingrich took on some water over Freddie Mac, but other than that, I think the evening was his — again. If people vote based on debates, he will be the nominee
Gingrich performed better than anybody in the debate, although Michelle Bachmann REALLY hurt him among women by fighting back against him repeatedly saying she has her facts wrong (she doesn't) in a way that sounded like, well, a male chauvinist correcting a "little lady." And all the other attacks on him on Iowa TV, all well-founded, mean that his campaign is really in at least temporary difficulty overall. The Freddie/Fannie attacks against him really hurt, too, even though he handled it as well as anybody could have.
I was worried about this on Paul's behalf: He's getting ample time to explain why he disagrees with the Republican [foreign] policy mainstream. His victory strategy in Iowa isn't to win over the Republicans who agree with that consensus — he needs to grab 25 percent, maybe, if he's lucky — but he gains no support on answers like this. He's even put in the position of defending Barack Obama's position on sanctions.
Various pundits are the right are attacking Ron Paul for those answers. Here's Ryan Preston:
Newt Gingrich had the most to lose but he didn’t do the most losing. Ron Paul had a terrible run when attempting to explain his policies on Iran’s nuclear program, ultimately losing a one-on-one confrontation with Michele Bachmann. This was Ron Paul’s worst debate.
Aaron Goldstein basically calls Paul a traitor:
After tonight's performance, especially following his exchange with Bachmann over Iran, I am convinced that [Ron Paul] would be the perfect spokesman for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. During WWII, you had Tokyo Rose. Today, you have Tehran Ron.
E.D. Kain completely disagrees:
Iran may indeed be a threat, but there are other ways to approach this threat than war, including working to bring Iran into the global economy, giving them a stake in the peace and prosperity of the world economy. The far greater threat, as Paul warned, is a costly and destructive overreaction.
Ron Paul did lots to help himself with the 15% of the party who already love him. Little for the 85% who don't.
Nothing tonight likely slowed Gingrich’s descent in the polls, or, as far as I could see, determined which candidate will gain from that decline. At least, not the debate itself; winning the spin from it, which is affected not so much by what happened but by how high-profile Republicans choose to play it, certainly could have a significant effect.
The Dish 