Dan Amira sets the scene for the second New Hampshire debate in 10 hours:
Newt Gingrich, in particular, was in a combative mood, attacking Romney for claiming he wasn't a "career politician," for his negative super PAC ads, for his "timid" tax plan, and for his record as "moderate" governor. Jon Huntsman and Rick Santorum also criticized Romney in harsh terms, while Rick Perry was content to cast the whole lot as "insiders," and Ron Paul continued to focus on, as he calls it, "preaching the Gospel of liberty." All in all, it was a much rougher debate for Romney than last night's ABC-sponsored snooze-fest.
Romney had a tough start. Santorum had a very pointed question on his decision not to run for re-election in 2006, “Why did you bail out?” Romney responded with what Newt rightly called “pious baloney.” On this question, Romney simply can’t admit the truth—he didn’t run for re-election because he might have lost and, more importantly, he wanted to run for president. Romney absurdly characterized leaving office to run for another office as returning to the private sector. I’m not sure how much voters will be outraged by any of this. They probably assume every politician wants to run for office. But the exchange got to a certain falsity in Romney’s self-presentation that plays into more important doubts about his sincerity.
Many of the attacks [against Romney] didn’t seem to me to be on issues that really mattered … Rick Santorum got into an extended exchange with him over why he didn’t run for re-election as Governor in 2006, for example, and Newt Gingrich got into an argument with Romney over SuperPAC ads that Gingrich claims were incorrect. Jon Huntsman, meanwhile, took the opportunity to strike back at Romney for criticizing him for accepting the President’s request to serve as Ambassador to China, making a point about serving ones country that got applause from the audience.
Mataconis further defends Huntsman's service here. E.J. Dionne:
Romney was utterly unpersuasive when he used faux innocence to try to explain why he didn’t run for reelection as governor of Massachusetts in 2006: “Run again? That would be about me.” I am not a cynic. I do believe politicians are motivated by more than just raw personal ambition. But the notion that a candidate is not at least partly “about me” is absurd. Of course Romney is partly about me — as are all of God’s flawed creatures. The notion that he didn’t run for reelection just because the campaign would have been about him is simply not credible. It was a great gotcha moment when Rick Santorum puckishly asked Romney if this meant that he would not run for reelection as president. Romney was so emphatic in saying he would seek reelection that he undercut his entire point.
Romney's weakest moment was suggesting that only rich people should run for office by citing his father's advice to him: "Mitt, never get involved in politics if you have to win an election to pay a mortgage." He then bragged about his unsuccessful attempt to unseat Ted Kennedy: "I was happy he had to take a mortgage out on his house to ultimately defeat me."
Texas Governor Rick Perry, desperate to make an impression, followed up his Saturday-night promise to send troops back to Iraq by flatly declaring on Sunday: “We have a president that’s a socialist.” He also managed to work in all three departments he would eliminate, prompting vigorous applause from the other candidates, while working in the magic words, "Tea Party," as often as humanly possible. Huntsman summed up the proceedings well: "Everybody’s got something nasty to say." But while there was heat, there was precious little light on issues of substance.
Gingrich, who was left out in the cornfield last night with odd, random questions, was fully engaged and had anger directed toward a real purpose. … It went well for him. So he stays in the race. Santorum did just fine, but he and Ron Paul continued to attack each other in a debate equivelent of the cartoons that run before a main feature. Sure, Santorum scored on Romney, too, but his essential self-confidence trips him up in debates — he cannot let a point go even if the person making it is, in the long run, irrelevant to him.
What makes Ron Paul's presence on the debate stage so galvanizing — in human and dramatic terms, entirely apart from his policies — is the apparent absence of any "how will this go over???" filter between his brain and his mouth. You ask him if he thinks Newt Gingrich — standing a few feet from him — is a "chickenhawk," and he'll say, Yes, I hate people who didn't serve but want to start wars. Ask him if he thinks the other politicians are "corrupt," and he'll say, Yes these guys over here, they are.
There was a reason for Romney’s success–and it pains me to disclose it: he was well-prepped by his consultants. His answers were clear, concise, declarative sentences. None of the other candidates seemed to have been prepped at all. They had their moments, but their sentences were clumsy, loaded with jargon and dependent clauses. Their message was garbled, their attacks muddy. They seemed amateurs. Romney is a professional.
While he took some hits, [Romney] showed again that he’s become pretty good at this; in most cases, he deflected them and continued on without much noticeable damage. … Presumably few watched either debate this weekend, so the real question is how the spin goes, especially on news outlets New Hampshire and South Carolina voters will be watching. But as a guess, it’s hard to see that anything changed, which is of course just fine with Mitt Romney.
Igor Volsky scrutinizes the above video of Romney and Santorum ostensibly standing up for equality:
[Romney] opposes federal employment nondiscrimination protections and has proposed amending the constitution to outlaw same-sex marriage across the nation and institute a complicated three-tier system for married gay couples. He has also signed a pledge from the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), promising to derail equality for gays and lesbians. In response to a question about how he would protect the rights of LGBT Americans, Rick Santorum also promised to make sure that “every person in America, gay or straight, is treated with respect and dignity and has the equality of opportunity” but pledged to continue opposing marriage equality and adoption by gay parents.
The Dish highlighted more key moments from this morning's debate here, here, here and here. Blogger reax to last night's debate here if you missed it. My take here.
The Dish 