The Daily Wrap

6a00d83451c45669e20162ffff38d3970d-550wi

Today on the Dish, Andrew pronounced Gingrich the favorite in Florida, liveblogged the (somewhat off-kilter, no?) Republican debate with reax herediagnosed the ailment in the GOP that allows Newt to flourish, blasted the politics of his bankroller Sheldon Adelson, and advised him to grow a beard. Andrew also defended the Newsweek piece against Hot Air's critiques on taxes and health care, flagged some criticism from the left, ran down the article's readership, continued to emphasize Bain's importance to the campaign, didn't think the tax issue was played out, and enjoyed the Romney meltdown.

We compiled reax to the South Carolina victory (weekend coverage here), saw evidence of a lead in Florida, tracked another two rounds of "full unconcealed panic" about Newt in the GOP, thought Romney's blitz could kill Newt in Florida, pinpointed Newt's appeal, marvelled at his chutzpah, wondered why he didn't call Bush a "food stamp president," and dug up his crazy views about pot and Iran. Romney was given free advice, people disliked him for reasons other than his wealth, the GOP was not and will not be saved by a late entry, its current candidates ran for President of red America, and managed to alienate hispanic America in the process.

Beyond the campaign, Egypt's new parliament began working, Bosnia pulled itself apart in its educational system, and morality didn't sink with the Titanic. Gabby Giffords retired with class, Obama pushed for birth control coverage, the defeat of SOPA had interesting political implications, and the construction industry needed fixing. Animals trained people, our conception of what people in stories are created the uncanny valley, and we also liked to smell each other. Reality check here, Quotes for the Day here and here, Ad War update here, VFYW here, FOTD here, and MHB here.

Z.B.

Florida NBC Debate Reax

Romney points out that he would pay no taxes under Gingrich's tax plan:

Buzzfeed Politics focuses on Mitt and Newt's long back-and-forth:

Gingrich offered proof that he didn't lobby: He's hired a lobbying expert. Actually, that proves the opposite. … [T]he reason you bring in an expert on the complicated law isn't to avoid influence-peddling. It's to avoid having to register.

Jonah Goldberg echoes:

[Gingrich's] stuff about not being a lobbyist of any sort is just silly. Why else bring in a lawyer to explain to him how to avoid the label? You could see it on his face that he regretted bringing that up the moment he said it.

Hugh Hewitt piles on:

Newt got hammered.  The lobbying/influence peddling line of attacks from Romney cues new and old media for the next three days.  What did he do, when did he do it, for whom, and for how much?

Rod Dreher gives Romney the win:

You could have turned this thing off after the first 25 minutes. Romney knifed him early on, and Gingrich never really recovered. But Romney failed to continue the momentum he built up against Gingrich. I think Romney won this thing, but not by much. They all looked second-rate tonight.

Will Wilkinson seconds:

Gingrich tried to play the equable frontrunner but got dinged hard by Romney, who calmly but tenaciously pressed the charge of K Street influence-peddling. I think it will stick. Romney also put the tax question behind him, for now, but I think failed once again to really connect with conservatives. Bottom line: Romney stayed steady, Gingrich got taken down a notch. So Romney wins.

Quin Hillyer thinks this was Gingrich's worst debate since June:

He got hit repeatedly without parrying the hits all that well. On the other hand, nobody really knocked him out, and even an off night for him is still mostly competent — so his "loss" tonight wasn’t a bad one. 

Josh Marshall, on the other hand, calls Gingrich the victor:

 This one isn’t as easy to read as the last two. I think both Mitt and Newt did pretty well (the other two were non-entities). But if pressed I’d call it for Newt because he has explosive momentum on his side right now. And I don’t think this was enough to change that dynamic.

In response to comments by Paul and Gingrich, Nick Baumann points out that economists overwhelmingly disagree with returning to a gold standard:

Every single one of the economists … embraced the anti-gold standard view, differing only on the degree to which they disagreed with it.  Gold standard advocates will point out that many top economists missed things like the housing bubble and the financial crisis, and that establishment support for a view doesn't necessarily mean it's correct. That's true, but context is important, too.

Dave Weigel wishes Ron Paul were asked smarter questions about a possible third party candidacy:

Why does Ron Paul constantly get asked if he'll run third party in 2012 — a hypothetical question he can keep blowing off — and not a historical question. 1) Why did you leave the Republican Party in 1988, and run against its nominee? 2) Why, in 2008, did you endorse three third party candidates, and not John McCain?

Ewen MacAskill analyzes Newt's Cuba answer:

Gingrich's tough, traditional line on Cuba will go down well with older Cubans especially his cheap jibe that Castro will not be going to heaven but hell. But young voters of Cuban descent, according to the polls, do not share the idea of confrontation with Cuba and will be more sympathetic to Paul's line that the US embargo has propped up Castro for four decades and it would be better to have open relations with Cuba, especially trade, a sentiment that would be cheered by many on the left.

Daniel Larison dissects the same answer:

Gingrich wants to overthrow the Cuban government. Of course he does. He wants a "very aggressive" policy towards Cuba. The man is a lunatic.

W. James Antle III considers Romney's "self-deportation" comment:

Mitt Romney showed some signs of life tonight, though his comments about "self-deporting" illegal immigrants were panned by some commentators. Romney assumed too much familiarity with the concept of attrition through enforcement. One does wonder whether his exchanges with Newt Gingrich will serve mainly to bid up both men's negatives at this point.

Clara Jeffrey claims "self-deportation" is a real term:

Anti-immigration adovocates like this for several reasons: It has a free-market/free will gloss to it. It purports to save money on deportation costs. And, most importantly, because it relies on states enforcing immigration via passing draconian laws rather than federal law enforcement/border efforts. 

Aaron Goldstein says the silent audience hurt Newt:

The debate audiences at NBC, CBS and ABC behave like they're at a tennis match. The audiences at Fox News and CNN are far more expressive and that works to Newt's advantage. A sedate audience like the one tonight at NBC doesn't play to Newt's strengths. I suspect Newt will fare better at Thursday night's debate which airs on CNN. What will also help him is that the debate is co-sponsored by the Hispanic Leadership Network and Newt is perceived as more sympathetic to Hispanics than Romney.

And Jonathan Chait thought the debate was rather boring:

The quiet room made every line land softly. As a result the participants came off more like a sober think-tank panel than a pack of crazed, fear-mongering gladiators performing before a crowd baying for the blood of President Obama, immigrants, and gay people. 

Live-Blogging The Florida NBC Debate

10.55 pm. A reader sums it up:

Not sure if we just watched a debate between Two-Face and the Penguin. Watching Newt waddle off the stage really made me think that the visual fits.

But he waddled off a statesman. In his own mind. Another writes:

I just walked out to the living room to find my husband passed out (from boredom) on the couch. I can't vote as I am a registered Democrat in Florida and my husband can't vote as he's a registered Independent. We just want the ads to stop.

They've only just begun. And after the statesmanlike torpor tonight, they'll have to be vicious. We'll keep you posted. Every day with our Ad War Update. As for the neologism of the night, a reader notes:

In response to your question about who "self-deports"… didn't Romney's granddad self-deport to Mexico to maintain his right be married to more than woman at a time?

Yes, he did. But I suspect he'd have more in common with Newt than Mitt in that regard.

10.42 pm. What a different Gingrich tonight: eager to thank and support his rivals; humble with respect to the huge challenges ahead. He has decided to cut the fireworks to foil his critics. And I presume his Super PAC will meanwhile open up various cans of whup-ass on Romney. So this is Newt on his best behavior. Even when Romney called him a "disgrace" three times.

Maybe Gingrich is trying to reassure the establishment that he is not the constant bomb-thrower and surprise agent. Maybe he realizes he needs to look more presidential. My own take is that this gambit cannot work for Newt. He is not a serene statesman. He's a ferocious demagogue. That's all he knows. I don't find the new Newt very appealing. But maybe tactically, it makes sense.

As for Romney, he was back on form, but also oddly Romney-esque. The crude and dumb attacks on Obama remained. The occasional weirdness – why is he so proud that Ted Kennedy took out a new mortgage? why brag that he'd pay no taxes under Newt's tax plan? – endured. The confidence returned, but still no character and no personality to engage with.

Santorum? Competent and unlikable. Paul? Well, you know what I think. This was a great line:

"How can you be conservative and cut food stamps, but not cut a penny over-seas …"

That line may well have more resonance in the future than anything else tonight, if, as now seems possible, Obama wins in a landslide.

Anyway, it's late now and it's time to self-deport. Maybe the tax releases tomorrow will be more exciting.

10.39 pm. Santorum does very well on his stark contrast to president Obama, in contrast with Gingrich and Romney. Then Paul reminds us that constant war is not a real conservative value. 

10.37 pm. A reader writes:

Until tonight, I turned on the Republican debates, heard the crown hoot and holler, turned it off and followed it on your live-blog.  Tonight, I turned it on, could hear a pin drop, watched and listened to the men on the stage.  First time in 18 debates –  kudos to NBC for pulling the plug on bloodlust.

10.34 pm. How does having a family advance conservatism as an ideology? Or working for a private equity company? Just when you think Romney has rallied, he gives you a lame-ass answer like that one. And ends it with a smirk.

10.29 pm. So Gingrich says that the Bush tax cuts helped the economy not to go under after 9/11. Does that mean that the Obama tax cuts helped the economy not to enter a Second Great Depression? Or does Keynesian economics only work under Republicans?

But notice how that question – why didn't the Bush tax cuts work? – should have prompted an anti-media tirade from Newt. It't the perfect set-up, and also the kind of valid point that usually makes Newt's head explode. But he just went along with it. He seems completely robbed of that South Carolina fire. Is it the audience? Or is he just exhausted? I wouldn't blame him. But Romney has, in my view, done well in this debate so far. Because he has never really been challenged.

10.25 pm. No one has laid a hand on Romney so far. After the first exchange between him and Newt, the attacks evaporated. Romney seems to have won the alpha dog fight. Either that or Newt has finally decided to calm down and control his anger. That way, he'll lose. Without anger, he is oddly small.

10.23 pm. Newt has finally found a reason for a judge to exist – to keep people alive for ever. Then Paul urges living wills. Sanity as usual.

10.20 pm. Maybe I was too hyped up for fight night, but NBC has managed to drain the entire thing of drama. Some readers, however, like it:

Sorry, Andrew. I think Brian Williams is doing fine. Calm, rational, but with pointed questions that get the candidates answering directly – without making himself or how the questions are asked the issue. This is the kind of debate we should have.

Another:

Gingrich cannot perform outside of high drama. He plays one note, but it can only be played under a specific media-centric form of duress. 

There is a method to Williams' dullness.

A reader writes:

I used to think that Ron Paul's analogies regarding how "we" would feel if "they" did that to us were cliched and obvious, but they have really grown on me. His analogy regarding the Gulf of Mexico really opened my eyes. If someone set up a blockade in the Gulf, we would consider it an act of war and obliterate it immediately. The only reason we think that we can set up a blockade in foreign waters and say it is not an act of war is because the offended country wouldn't be stupid enough to retaliate against a military superpower. It's like the bully politely asking for the nerd's lunch money: the only reason the transaction takes place without a fight is because the nerd is smart enough to realize if he doesn't comply he will end up with a broken nose. But that doesn't mean the bully is practicing peaceful diplomacy.

He's opened my eyes as well. Along with the reaction of the GOP establishment to his truths.

10.16 pm. Romney is using the golfing smear! Romney? Then a series of bald-faced lies about Obama. There have been no private sector jobs created since the stimulus? There have only been private sector jobs, as the public sector – mainly in the states – has slashed employment.

10.14 pm. This reader may have a point about that earlier pause in the Mitt-Newt flare-up:

That was a somewhat strange and long stretch of silence from Newt, but to me it didn't feel like he was afraid but pausing to let his first instinctive impulse — exploding in a red fury — pass. I thought he was, for maybe the very first time in his professional life, remembering and acting upon somebody else's advice to stay calm.

But when there is not a demos, there can be no demagogue.

10.12 pm. A new Romney verb: to "self-deport." Who on earth does that?

10.10 pm. Newt backtracks on the DREAM Act, by shifting it to military service alone. They're a little close to saying that immigrant children need to risk their lives to be able to stay in the country in which they grow up.

10.07 pm. Great question about English as a national language. Newt parries it rather well, I'd say, even though his argument about hundreds of different languages is bullshit. Spanish is different – because it is spoken by far, far more Americans than any other language but English. But both Newt and Mitt shone on this. The graveyard quiet helps Romney's calm, soporific tone. Paul again suggests that different states could have different languages. You never know what he'll say next, do you?

10.06 pm. A reader writes:

Newt is neutered without a crowd hungry for applause lines and visceral overstatement. Romney, in contrast, is clearly comfortable with the more formal flavor. And Paul is almost serene as Santorum fades into his own podium. A weird dynamic, indeed.

10.03 pm. Williams gives Santorum his wet dream of starting a war on Iran. He again equates the Shiite theocracy with the radical, stateless Sunni al Qaeda. How many Americans have been murdered by Iran's regime in the US? Does he conflate all Muslims abroad?

9.57 pm. I love Ron Paul. Only he would challenge the Cuba embargo in Florida! And only he would point out that Iran has been subjected to a de facto blockade of their oil exports – and that their military threats are entirely understandable from their point of view. He sees these wars as terrible, expensive, no-win hassles. And after the last decade, you can see his point.

In contrast, the other three seem set in trying to revive the late 20th Century America. Iraq is never mentioned. Afghanistan? All Romney can say is that we need to "beat the Taliban."

9.56 pm. Does Gingrich think the Iranians think Obama is weak? When he has assembled the most damaging set of sanctions and covert war on the country since 1979?

9.52 pm. Santorum so misses the Cold War. Now he's linking Cuba with the Jihadists. Meanwhile, on Fox, Fred Thompson just endorsed Gingrich. The best line of the night, though, is Ponnuru's on Romney on Castro's death: "Maybe Mitt should avoid talking about the afterlife."

9.48 pm. Newt wants a "very aggressive policy" for regime change in Cuba, and sets a four year limit on getting rid of the communist regime in Cuba. He successfully out-panders Romney. And Ron Paul gets the first genuine laugh of the night. And give him this: he will go to Florida for a primary and complain about the Cuba embargo. Amazing. Awesome.

9.46 pm. Say this for Brian Williams. He's the first moderator to ask why the right response to the Wall Street crash is less regulation.

9.44 pm. "The debt has to be liquidated!" Has Ron Paul said that in every debate? Has any phrase been more anti-septic compared with its real-world impact?

9.40 pm. A reader sums up the consensus:

Newt is on the defense a lot, it seems to me. And Paul has moved his sights from Santorum to Gingrich. Paul's convinced he will be last man standing against Romney.

9.35 pm. Where did Brian Williams go? The direct one-on-one between Newt and Mitt was – however – fascinating. When it comes down to it, I thought Romney won the confrontation. Gingrich was always on the defensive, and the argument that working for Freddie Mac had nothing to do with lobbying or influence peddling is unpersuasive on its face.

There was a moment in that exchange when Gingrich simply went silent. That doesn't happen very often. It felt as if the demagogue had been exposed and was actually somewhat afraid. But it's a weird dynamic on that stage. I can't quite grasp it yet.

9.32 pm. So the crowd has been told to be quiet. And now Romney is beginning to make headway on Freddie Mac. The historian line is not working for Newt. But there's no passion in Mitt's challenge. Now they're fighting over how much Bain was worth.

9.29 pm. It's on Channel 211 in DC. Several readers couldn't find it either.  One reason: the listing is "Fear Factor: Leeches and Shaved Heads & Tear Gas, Oh My!" Sounds more interesting.

9.26 pm. Romney says he won't follow his father's example in releasing 12 years of tax returns. He'll present two years – years in which he knew he was running for president. And Gingrich has now promised to reduce Mitt's effective tax rate to zero. Great.

9.22 pm. Catching up on the early attacks from Romney. They sound comprehensive and uninspired, and Gingrich didn't take the bait. Hence the staggering silence from the crowd.

9.21 pm. Brian Williams is awful – just boring and uninterested in actual issues.

9.20 pm. Callista did his hair. It looks the same color as hers now. So where's the curl?

9.18 pm. It seems really dead, so far. I missed the fireworks. Maybe they were squibs. And now Brian Williams seems to be asking purely process questions.

9.15 pm. Deepest apologies. Found it finally. Of course it isn't listed.

9.10 pm. Still cannot find it anywhere on my cable line-up, and the web isn't helping either.

9.05 pm I cannot find the NBC channel. Bear with me.

Ad War Update: The Mitts Come Off

Jennifer Rubin proclaims, "Make no mistake. Mitt Romney is on offense now":

Allahpundit has reservations about Romney's strategy: 

I understand why he’d want to hit Newt hard on Freddie in Florida, which has taken a beating from the housing downturn. What I don’t understand is what he’ll say when Newt reminds the world that Mitt put more than $250,000 in mutual funds that invested in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, among other government entities. Romney will come prepared with some sort of spin, but I think details are almost meaningless to most voters with tu quoques like this, especially with a candidate like Mitt who’s already perceived as two-faced. (Why is a guy who’s famously worth nine figures calling on anyone to give back some of their earnings, anyway? Terrible optics.) 

Meanwhile, the Romney campaign is aggressively fighting for the Spanish-language vote in Florida:

From Marc Caputo's translation of the above spot: 

FORMER CONGRESSMAN LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART: “I am Lincoln Diaz-Balart.  The presidential election this year will be decisive for the cause of liberty.  We have an obligation to confront Barack Obama with the candidate who has the greatest opportunity to win. That is why I am with Romney.”

In the following ad, Romney goes after the female vote, a putative weakness for Gingrich: 

Super PAC spending update here. Organized labor is joining the campaign against Bain capitalism, likening Romney to the extremely unpopular Florida governor, Rick Scott: 

Greg Sargent sounds off

The ad represents just how scrambled the political calculus has become, now that Republicans have been attacking Romney’s business background in terms identical to those being employed by Democrats. A major union is now perfectly comfortable amplifying one of its own attack lines against Romney — in an effort to sway GOP primary voters, in addition to those who will vote in the general.

Steve Benen thinks ahead

[G]iven Florida’s electoral significance, and [Rick] Scott’s ability to repulse, I suspect this isn’t the last time we’ll see Romney’s critics equate him with the scandal-plagued governor. It’s a natural question for Florida voters to consider: remember the last time a conservative businessman with a shady private-sector background made a bunch of promises? Were Floridians satisfied with the results? I would imagine that President Obama and his allies would spend much of the fall making a similar argument in the Sunshine State: if you don’t like Rick Scott, don’t elect someone like him to the White House.

Lastly, a peculiar anti-Romney spot from Americans United:

Why Isn’t Bush A “Food Stamp President”?

Peter Suderman recalls some recent history:

To some extent, the food stamps expansion the country has seen under Obama is how food stamps are supposed to work: It’s a countercyclical program, meaning that as the economy declines, enrollment grows. Typically, then, the program grows in recessions and declines in economic boom times. But with the 2002 farm bill, President Bush dramatically expanded eligibility, restoring benefits to nearly a million individuals at the beginning of 2003, and paving the way for the program to expand as it did during the rest of presidency. As a result, Bush managed to oversee unprecedented growth in the program even as the economy grew. Obama then followed up on this with an eligibility expansion of his own in the 2009 stimulus package.

It’s not unreasonable to criticize Obama for the expansion of the food stamps program under his watch. But Obama's Republican critics shouldn’t forget that it was a GOP president who helped make that expansion possible.

Earlier commentary on the food stamp line of attack here, here and here.

Santorum Is No McCain

When John McCain was asked a question in the campaign about Obama's alleged Muslim faith, he batted it down. When Rick Santorum meets such a figure, he panders:

I will leave alone the fantastical notions being bruited about Obama. Santorum knows that the president is a Christian. And he lets this lie pass. He also doesn't challenge the lunacy of Obama being ineligible for the presidency because he was born in Kenya.

Next up: Santorum maintains his view that the government should ban abortions even in the case of rape, and cites "God's will" for a secular political position on civil marriage licenses. If God's will is the guide, then why is Santorum not campaigning against civil divorce?

A Sinking Ship

Mark Steyn mourns the end of civilization:

On the Costa Concordia, in the words of a female passenger, “There were big men, crew members, pushing their way past us to get into the lifeboat.” [In contrast, the] men on the Titanic — liars and thieves, wealthy and powerful, poor and obscure — found themselves called upon to “finish in style,” and did so. They had barely an hour to kiss their wives goodbye, watch them clamber into the lifeboats, and sail off without them. They, too, ’oped it wouldn’t ’appen to them, but, when it did, the social norm of “women and children first” held up under pressure and across all classes.

Today there is no social norm, so it’s every man for himself — operative word “man,” although not many of the chaps on the Titanic would recognize those on the Costa Concordia as “men.”

Eduardo Peñalver corrects Steyn's facts that ethics on the Titanic "held up under pressure and across all classes":

Less than half of the third class women (46% saved) and children (34% saved) survived, compared to 100% of the first and second class children, and 97% and 86% of the first and second class women, respectively.

Peñalver concludes:

So a disaster in which the elites play by their own rules and in which the poor survive at about half the rate of the wealthy and middle class is Steyn’s example of how a well ordered society responds to adversity.  Maybe my initial reaction was wrong.  Steyn’s Titanic praise may actually be a perfect metaphor for contemporary National Review Republicanism.

Education By Ethnicity

6023651100_3b626fa720_b

Aleksandar Hemon mourns the fact that Bosniak (Bosnians of Muslim background), Croat, and Serb kids are "taught three different, quite possibly mutually exclusive, histories of their pitiable homeland":

In some parts of Bosnia, children of different ethnicities attend school in the same building, but are meticulously segregated: they go to different classrooms, share no classes, they often have different programs and textbooks, the faculty neither mix nor cooperate. In some schools, classes begin at different times, lest children have any contact or communication before or after school. … The nationalists who represent the constitutive peoples want and expect national subjects, not citizens. They want children to come out of the rickety educational machine equipped to think of themselves exclusively within the framework of their ethnicity.

(Photo of a "Sarajevo Rose" – a concrete scar caused by a mortar explosion – by Becky Tappin)

Faces Of The Day

137563433

Chinese young performers dressed in dragon costumes prepare to perform at a temple fair to celebrate the Lunar New Year of Dragon on January 22, 2012 in Beijing, China. Falling on January 23 this year, the Chinese Lunar New Year, also known as the Spring Festival, which is based on the Lunisolar Chinese calendar, is celebrated from the first day of the first month of the lunar year and ends with Lantern Festival on the 15th day. By Feng Li/Getty Images.