All hail Mitt Romney! -- how last night's "caustic" GOP debate in New Hampshire was really all about deference and resignation

By Michael J.W. Stickings

On the one hand, last night's Republican debate in New Hampshire was "caustic," with the various anti-Romneys lining up to take their generally lame and mostly ineffectual shots at the frontrunner -- and of course continuing to show just what right-wing extremists they are, Huntsman excepted. There are occasional glimpses of nastiness in this race, but for the most part the tone is one of respect, politeness, and deference. And while the anti-Romneys have often gone after each other (e.g., Ron Paul's attacks on Gingrich and Santorum), it would appear that a certain resignation has set in. Mitt Romney will be the nominee, no one really wants to weaken him any further, and he continues to float through this whole ridiculous process largely unscathed. Last night's debate only "caustic" from the ever-so-courteous Meet the Press perspective of the Beltway.

(Speaking of MTP, this morning's debate was indeed "far livelier than its predecessor," as Steve Benen puts it, but still hardly a fireworks display. Perhaps the key takeaway is that Romney, good plutocrat/oligarch that he is, thinks that politics is for the rich. Aristotle would not be amused.)

Read what you want about the debate, but do not neglect Esquire's Charles Pierce, who penetrates through the bullshit to get to the heart of the matter:

At this moment, I am still digesting the incredible farrago of gibbering nonsense, vengeful religious rage, political chickenshit, and Mandarin Chinese that combined to make the 45,670th of 62,390 scheduled Republican presidential debates the Level 4 biohazard that it was.

*****

In brief, Saturday night may have been the most naked piece of point-shaving and game-throwing since the 1919 World Series. I've seen fixed prizefights where the issue was more in doubt. The other candidates went so far into the tank for Willard that they may not dry off until next August. In the 1950's, Frankie Carbo would have had them all killed because they made it look so damned obvious. Where was the promised Gingrich assault on the frontrunner? Where was the blood, the guts, the glory? Where was the damn slasher film we all anticipated? This was a waltz, and a clumsy one. If the people in that audience had any pride at all, they'd have attacked the ABC platform and demanded satisfaction for this massive piece of consumer fraud.

The coalescing has begun. The non-Romneys seem to be coming to grips with the fact that there's virtually no chance that Willard isn't the nominee. So, by and large, the rest of them started paying court staying away from him.

Do yourself a favor and read the whole piece. It's awesome, including his takedown of Santorum for saying there are no classes in America: "I have never heard a politician say anything that stupid before in 30 years of watching politicians talk in public."

In the end, these clowns merely embarrassed themselves still further, again excepting the generally respectable Huntsman:

At the very end, just as I was beginning to wonder if the end would ever come, they were asked what would they be doing on Saturday night if they weren't on that stage. (Ooh, ooh! Ask me! Ask me!) Gingrich started off by saying he'd be home "watching the national-championship college basketball game." He meant the football game, and he caught himself, sort of, so we'll give him a pass. Then two of his compadres — including Willard — agreed with him. Yeah, they'd be watching that national-championship game, you betcha, boy howdy.

The BCS championship game takes place Monday night. Three members of the Republican presidential field told America last night that, if they weren't in New Hampshire being dicks to themselves and the rest of the nation, they'd be home watching a football game that wouldn't be played for nearly another 48 hours. 

Morons.

About that Gingrich-Huntsman "debate" yesterday

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Politico:

The meeting of two presidential candidates here today was billed as a successor to the Lincoln Douglas debates, but turned out to be a festival of self-congratulation intended less to tease out differences between Newt Gingrich and Jon Huntsman than simply signal their status as serious men.

Well, Huntsman is a serious man, I suppose, but Gingrich is still an egomaniac.

Now, sure, a Gingrich-Huntsman debate (or, rather, discussion, as there wasn't much disagreement) is more substantial than, say, a Perry-Cain debate (where there would be disagreement about the number of Supreme Court justices and about what continent Libya is on), and if only by the standards of their own anti-intellectual party these two did have a fairly substantive discussion about foreign policy and national security -- whatever you may think of their specific policy prescriptions.

But let's not make too much of this. It wasn't Lincoln-Douglas. It was just a forum for Gingrich to sell himself as the "serious" candidate of 2012, particularly without Romney there, as the Republican candidate most able to stand up to Obama (and put him in his place -- and, yes, this racist fantasy of putting the uppity Negro in his place is driving a lot of Republicans, and Newt is more than willing to blow the dog whistle, appealing to that racism), and for Huntsman to pre-sell himself as a "serious" candidate in 2016 should the GOP not take the White House next year and turn to a more moderate option four years later.

It was all just a big show, in other words, and Newt did well enough to reinforce his standing as clear GOP frontrunner.

**********

For an excellent description of the "debate," here's The Guardian's Richard Adams:

If the famous Lincoln-Douglas debates had been as insipid and smug as yesterday's self-styled copy – a debate between Newt Gingrich and Jon Huntsman – slavery would probably still be legal in America.

In reality the long-winded discussion in New Hampshire between the two 2012 Republican presidential hopefuls was more like a warm bath than a hot-tempered dialogue.

In 1858 Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas clashed over slavery, equality and what Lincoln called "the eternal struggle" over right and wrong – "The two principles that have stood face to face from the beginning of time," in Lincoln's words.

By 2011, Gingrich and Huntsman politely mused alongside each other's thoughts, largely agreeing and when they didn't agree they merely agreed not to disagree. How agreeable.

The high point of the night came when Huntsman, in the middle of a windy reply, spotted a family member in the audience falling asleep. "I see my daughter nodding off, so let's move on," he said.

I was following it on Twitter, and then watched some clips, and found it an utter bore. Good thing I didn't waste more time on it.

(photo)

Just how ridiculous is Donald Trump?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

So ridiculous even Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann want no part of his "debate."

Which means the "debate," really just an excuse for The Donald and his megalomania to be in the spotlight again, will be a Gingrich-Santorum affair (Paul and Huntsman won't be there either), to the extent they aren't overshadowed by Trump, that is, a "debate" between the frontrunner and an afterthought.

And yet people will still watch (assuming it's actually held). And why? Because Trump is crazy, and because you never know what he'll do or say, and because morbid curiosity rules the day in our popular and political culture.

Even the generally unreasonable Perry and Bachmann are staying away. That tells you all you need to know.

Huntsman and Gingrich to debate in New Hampshire

By Richard K. Barry

Although GOP hopeful Jon Huntsman isn't interested in a debate moderated by professional goofball Donald Trump, he does have to find other creative ways to get himself into the game. So Huntsman has decided that it makes sense to go one-on-one against the most recent candidate to take over the lead position in the race: Newt Gingrich. 

As Tommy Christopher reports at Mediaite:

In an email to reporters, the Huntsman campaign announced it had accepted an invitation to a Lincoln-Douglas style debate with current frontrunner Newt Gingrich, to be held in New Hampshire. Huntsman campaign manager Tim Miller also twisted the knife into Trump and rival Mitt Romney a little more.

This certainly is a significant gamble for Gingrich, who has tried to paint himself as the smartest person in the room amongst the Republican candidates, and a significant coup for Huntsman, who needs to find a way, any way, to get noticed.

Huntsman is putting all his eggs in the New Hampshire primary basket, and this debate will likely be such an oddity that all eyes are likely to be on it. 

Don't really know what's in it for Newt, besides the fact that he's so full of himself he will take any opportunity to prove he is the serious contender in the race. And a debate with Huntsman, a guy a lot of people think is intellectually substantial, may help him make the case -- assuming he does well. 

It would be great to see Newt brought low by his own hubris. I'm just really not sure Huntsman can get the job done.

Here's the press release from Huntsman's campaign announcing the event. Nice shots at Romney and Trump indeed.

Manchester- Jon Huntsman for President today announced that Governor Huntsman will be participating in a Lincoln-Douglas style debate with Newt Gingrich in New Hampshire this month. Details pending negotiations with the Gingrich campaign.

In addition, our campaign is declining the invitation to participate in the Donald Trump Apprentice Debate on December 27th.

Campaign spokesman Tim Miller issued the following statement:

"We look forward to discussing the issues that matter to the American people in a serious, substantive debate with Speaker Gingrich later this month. It is telling that Governor Romney has declined to participate because this substantive format makes it hard for him to hide from his record.

In addition, we have declined to participate in the 'Presidential Apprentice' Debate with The Donald. The Republican Party deserves a serious discussion of the issues so voters can choose a leader they trust to defeat President Obama and turn our economy around. We are confident that leader will be Jon Huntsman."

At last, something to write about Huntsman. It's been a long time. 

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Donald Trump to "moderate" Republican debate

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Crazy, you say? Yes. No doubt.

I'm not sure Trump can moderate anything, because anything Trump is involved with is, by definition, about Trump, and it's hard to see how he doesn't completely dominate this event and overwhelm the candidates.

So what is it all about? As usual, Jon Huntsman proves to be the lone voice of sense in the GOP wilderness of madness:

The conservative news magazine Newsmax announced Friday that it would co-sponsor a Republican presidential debate moderated by media personality and real estate tycoon Donald Trump on Dec. 27th in Des Moines, Ia., but they may have trouble convincing candidates to show up.

Former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman is the first to send his regrets.

"We look forward to watching Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich suck up to Trump with a big bowl of popcorn," Huntsman spokesman Tim Miller told Yahoo News. 

It's not going to be pretty. But I suppose train wrecks like this do indeed have some morbid appeal.

Support (some of) our troops? Conservatives need to edit their bumper stickers.

By Nicholas Wilbur

"Don't Ask, Don't Tell," the 18-year-old policy that banned gay soldiers from serving openly in the military, was declared unconstitutional by a federal judge one year ago this month.

The Huffington Post front page after the GOP debate.

 

The policy was repealed by Congress in December 2010 and signed into law by President Obama days later. That repeal went into effect Tuesday, Sept. 20, 2011.

At a Pentagon news conference, retiring Navy Adm. Mike Mullen said, "I still believe that it was first and foremost a matter of integrity, that it was fundamentally against everything we stand for as an institution to force people to lie about who they are just to wear a uniform. We are better than that."

 

Nonetheless, several of the presidential candidates seeking the Republican nomination have voiced their support for DADT. At the Fox News/Google GOP presidential debate last Thursday night in Orlando, Rick Santorum, answering a question in the third person about what he would do with the policy as commander in chief, said, "we would reinstitute that policy if Rick Santorum was president."

His answer was applauded by the audience. The gay soldier who asked the question, Stephen Hill, who is currently serving in Iraq, was booed by the audience. 

 

Other than Ron Paul, who believes everything is a states-rights issue, the rest of the candidates opposed the repeal of DADT.

• Mitt Romney... advocated for gays to be able to serve "openly and honestly" in the military in 1994 but has since changed gears. Since 2007, he has maintained consistency in arguing that DADT "has worked well."

"We're in the middle of a conflict. Now is not the time for a change in that regard, and I don't have a policy posture as to allowing gays in the military to serve there openly."

That said, Romney has no idea when we won't be "in the middle of conflict." He believes our mission in Afghanistan should end when our military generals decide it is time to leave.

• Michele Bachmann... voted against repealing DADT in December.

"The Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy has worked very well," she told CNN in August of this year. "It worked very well and I would be in consultation with our commanders, but I think yes, I probably would [reinstitute it as president]."

 

• Rick Perry... hates all things gay.

• Herman Cain... is irrelevant but a candidate nonetheless. He has said he wouldn't have overturned DADT in the first place, but added that he wouldn't create a "distraction" by trying to repeal the repeal now that it's done: "Our men and women have too many other things to be concerned about."

• Newt Gingrich... doesn't matter either, but for the record he has voiced support for letting the generals decide.

Sadly, even the constitutionalist of the bunch, Ron Paul, is wrong.

States have a role in the ratification of Constitutional amendments, but they don;t get to decide what is or isn't constitutional. Generals and commanders don't get to decide what is or isn't constitutional. Homophobes don't get to decide what is or isn't constitutional. Being in "the middle of conflict" doesn't have any bearing on what is or isn't constitutional. And the people who attend Republican presidential debates, people who think it's appropriate to boo active-duty soldiers, they don't get to decide what is or isn't constitutional, either.

Being patriotic, conservative American citizens, however, they do get to exercise their First Amendment rights by covering their vehicles in "Support Our Troops" bumper stickers.

I'm sure Stephen Hill is honored.

 

**********

• The Worst Fox News-Google Debate Moment: Audience Boos Gay Soldier (The Atlantic)

• Audience Boos Gay Soldier at GOP Debate (Crooks and Liars)

• Republican Debate Audience Boos U.S. Soldier (Political Animal)

(Cross-posted at Muddy Politics.)

Read Chait

By Michael J.W. Stickings

I used to read Jonathan Chait at The New Republic, now I read him at New York. He's one of the best.

Check him out at New York's Daily Intel blog, or here at his personal page.

**********

Here are a couple of recommended posts:

1) "The Agony of the GOP Establishment":

If you're a Republican opinion leader, you want to promote Romney over Perry. At the same time, you have to account for the possibility that Perry might win the nomination anyway, which means that you can't say anything that could be used against him in the general election. You need to gently suggest to Republicans that Perry is too crazy to be elected president, without suggesting to swing voters that he's too crazy to be elected president.

And this is precisely what establishment Republicans are doing, including the nefarious Karl Rove. But will they succeed, with the party's grassroots base aligned against them?

2) "Romney Out-Debates Perry While Perry Out-Themes Romney at the Fox-Google Debate":

In general, Romney took his weak hand and played it far better than Perry, who at times appeared to be drugged, and perhaps is still suffering from a recovery from back surgery. But though Romney won most exchanges on a question-by-question basis, Perry probably emerged with the stronger meta-theme. His overarching condemnation of Romney is as a slippery, quasi-Democratic figure. Romney has nothing anywhere near so strong to deploy against Perry. He has tried, elliptically, to paint his foe as unelectable. But the deeper Romney expresses contempt for Obama — tonight he accused him of never having held a job — the harder it must be for Republican voters to imagine that any nominee would actually lose to this unemployed, socialist, America-hating failure.

An excellent analysis of last night's "debate." Romney is by far the stronger candidate, at least in general election terms, and has much more substance to him than Perry, but Perry has a stronger case to make to the base, a much more compelling narrative to spin. (This is precisely the difficulty the establishment faces.)

Even Rick Perry thinks the pro-death Tea Party is crazy

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Well, okay, maybe not. He's one of them, enthusiastically, if with a bit more of a theocratic bent.

Still, it says something about the Tea Party that even Perry -- the guy who gets a kick executing people, who denies climate science, who calls Social Security is a Ponzi scheme, who thinks that prayer is the way to deal with disastrous drought, who sees a Biblical purpose in economic catastrophe (and human suffering), who has suggested sending troops into Mexico to wage the drug war, and who may very well be a Texas secessionist (and perhaps a neo-Confederate nationalist) -- was "taken aback" by a particularly disturbing response from Tea Party members at the GOP debate the other night:

The morning after a sometimes-rocky appearance in front of a Tea Party debate audience, Gov. Rick Perry said he was "taken aback" by cheers from some crowd members on a hypothetical question of whether a young man who decides not to buy health insurance should be refused care if he develops a life-threatening illness and be left to die.

"I was a bit taken aback by that myself," Perry told NBC News and the Miami Herald after appearing at a breakfast fundraiser in Tampa.

"We're the party of life. We ought to be coming up with ways to save lives."

Well, fine, though of course Perry is pro-death in terms of the death penalty, and, more broadly, the GOP is hardly a "party of life," unless "life" is defined strictly in terms of opposition to abortion rights.

Consider, for example, its opposition to universal health care, leaving tens of millions of people to the mercy, to the extent it has any, of the insurance industry. Or consider its views on poverty -- or on those entitlement programs, including Social Security, that help people stay afloat, if only barely.

Or its views on guns, with its ideal of a society of armed citizens on the brink of bloodthirsty violence.

Or its aggressively militaristic foreign policy, its rampant warmongering, its view that American power can be maximized through military force.

The fact is, the Republican Party would like to subject everyone to the brutality of the "free" market, including by denying even a basic safety net to those who through no fault of their own need some help, with the rest of the world reduced to serving that market.

A party of life? Please. It's nothing of the sort. Perry may have been "taken aback," but, honestly, what did he expect?

Does it surprise any of us that the Tea Party, a core component of today's Republican Party, applauds death?

The Texecutioner's Song: Part I

By Nicholas Wilbur

I called the 2004 election for George W. Bush on October 8, the night of his second debate with John Kerry.

Political analysts and media critics said the town-hall debate ranked as a tie (the previous and following meetings were solid Kerry victories), but by the end of the night it didn't matter if they ever met on stage again.

"Need some wood?"

The moment I knew Bush would coast into another four-year term occurred during an exchange about tax rates on small businesses. Kerry said Bush's policy made "small businesses" out of everything and everyone. He cited a report about Bush's tax filings showing the president had an $84-dollar income from a timber company, a meager amount that nonetheless qualified Bush as a small business owner.

Bush's response sealed any lingering hope I had that he would lose.

"I own a timber company?" he asked the crowd. "That's news to me." And with a pause that should be studied by every politician wanting to master the art of public speaking, Bush added, "Need some wood?"

These exchanges went on all night and throughout the remainder of the campaign. When Kerry outlined his support for tort reform, he talked about numbers and policies: the 500,000 kids cut from after-school programs, the 365,000 kids cut from health care, the future tax bracket for those making under $200,000 a year, the $3,500 or 64 percent increase in premiums for Missourians, the percentage of medical costs associated with tort reform.

Bush was much simpler.

He pulled out one detail of Kerry's monologue and quipped, "You're now for capping punitive damages? That's odd. You should have shown up on the floor in the Senate and voted for it then."

The end.

The debate wasn't a tie. Bush secured his second term, and in the process he reminded Democrats that, in politics, facts don’t matter. Kerry's points on both tort reform and taxes were accurate and valid in the context of the issues, but nobody watching the debate could say one way or another whether health insurance premiums in Missouri rose 64 percent or 46 percent. Not only would Americans not remember such a statistic, they wouldn't care. And in all honesty, why should they?

It's for the same reason that I believe Rick Perry has the GOP nomination in the bag.

I make the prediction not merely because he surpassed all expectations by completing his sentences during his first live debate performance. It's not because he so flippantly dismissed the debate moderator's "gotcha" questions and stuck to his talking points. And it's not because he got a raucous round of applause from a crowd that apparently thought putting 234 Texans to death was commendable.

It's because he's a cowboy who embodies all the positive qualities the American people found in George W. Bush. He's passionate but not pinched. He's quick and harsh when on the attack, but he's more entertained than vengeful when launching them. He talks in the stilted, stuttering drawl of a clichéd Texan – a comfort to those who aren't Ivy League elocutionists. Mainly, he appeals to the heart.

Tom Pennington, Getty Images

Similar to how most Republicans react to politics, my prediction about Perry's primary success is based on a gut reaction.

As Roger Simon of Politico put it, those who watched Rick Perry in the primary debate "saw a guy with square shoulders and a gunslinger squint, a man who likes to drop his g's when speakin' his mind... What his answers sometimes lacked in logic was made up for in enthusiasm, and after some initial nervousness – he gripped the sides of his podium as if he were hanging onto a life raft – Perry settled down to his talking points."

Indeed he did.

When asked about climate change – specifically, if Perry could name "specific scientists or specific theories" that he found "especially compelling" – the Texas governor focused on one detail of the question, in this case a word, and crafted an answer that was palatable to essentially every American watching on TV.

"Let me tell you what I find compelling, is what we've done in the state of Texas, using our ability to regulate our clean air. We cleaned up our air in the state of Texas, more than any other state in the nation during the decade. Nitrous oxide levels, down by 57 percent. Ozone levels down by 27 percent. That's the way you need to do it, not by some scientist somewhere saying, 'Here is what we think is happening out there.' The fact of the matter is, the science is not settled on whether or not the climate change is being impacted by man to the point where we're going to put America‘s economics in jeopardy."

Is any of it true?

Well, no. Texas ranks 13th on the "Toxic 20" list of most polluted states, and Houston ranks as the fifth most polluted city in the U.S. (Dallas also was in the top 10). Furthermore, climate change is only a "questionable theory" to cranks, and PolitiFact.com confirms that Perry's statement is utterly false.

But again, the facts are irrelevant.

In between his regular criticisms of "Romneycare," Perry finally fielded a question about his own "health care mandate" – a mandatory vaccination against cervical cancer for 12-year-olds.

Rather than stumbling over a defensive apology for his record, he put the question to rest by saying, "I hate cancer."

Who in America disagreed?

In mocking the intellectual over-analysis of left-wing pundits, Comedy Central's Jon Stewart explained Perry's magnetic effect with Republican voters this way: "In the presence of Republican voters, Rick Perry actuates an neuro-endocrine reaction that reroutes any analytic frontal cortex activity as a hotwave of electro-chemical impulses, stimulating their proto-reptilian limbic system."

As George Lakoff noted in The Political Mind, 98 percent of all political beliefs are unconscious. While Romney will win the battle for intellectuals who agree with his economic plan, Perry will win the war by appealing to the heart, the gut and, as Stewart's crotch grab implied, the balls.

"You don't get Rick Perry here," he said, pointing to his head. "You get him here!" 

(Cross-posted at Muddy Politics.)

Romney vs. Perry, reductio ad absurdum

By Michael J.W. Stickings

I was too busy writing our (long) NFL preview post (up this afternoon!) to pay much attention to the Republican debate last night, but it would seem that these are the two key takeaways:

1) It's Romney vs. Perry now. All else is pretty much irrelevant, even Bachmann.

2) Perry can handle himself awfully well, while Romney remains awkward.

Here's The Hill reporting on last night's "fireworks":

Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R) began sparring over their respective jobs records less than 10 minutes into Wednesday's Republican presidential debate.

The highly-anticipated fight between Romney and Perry, the two front-runners for the GOP nomination, largely lived up to expectations, with extended spats between the pair throughout the debate.

And how about this nasty little exchange:

Perry responded: "Michael Dukakis created jobs three times faster than you did, Mitt."

Romney retorted: "Well, as a matter of fact, George Bush and his predecessor created jobs at a faster rate than you did, governor."

I think Perry wins. Isn't it worse, if you're a Republican, to be compared to Dukakis than to Bush?

Whatever the case, it's rather amusing, in a depressing sort of way, watching two pro-business stooges talk about jobs. Romney made his wealth as a job-slashing management consultant, after all, while Perry is very much a corrupt crony capitalist (even Palin thinks so). But whatever. Let them duke it out.

While they do so, at least Obama has an opening -- even if his jobs speech was unfortunately re-scheduled to coincide with tonight's NFL opener -- to offer concrete solutions, to prove that he's serious about getting things done, about helping the American people at a time of significant economic uncertainty, instead of just trying to score cheap political points. The Republicans do enough of that.

Going gaga for Bachmann: How media hype made an unelectable GOP candidate a top-tier contender

By Nicholas Wilbur

(Ed. note: This post focuses heavily on the GOP presidential debate that took place two weeks ago today, along with the post-debate media coverage. Nicholas wrote about it here and now turns his attention specifically to Michele Bachmann, who may very well have "won" the debate and who, since then, has been catapulted into big-time contender status. -- MJWS)

When standing with a full field of political goons and professional gaffers, and with the press corps salivating like rabid wolves on the sidelines, not looking like a dunce is akin to victory, and momentary sanity equates to electability.

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) at the CNN GOP debate

And for that great feat, Michele Bachmann "stole the show," "grabbed the GOP nomination spotlight" and generally "dominated" the first legitimate debate between candidates seeking the Republican nomination for the presidency.

It wasn't just the "objective" mainstream editors who wrote such eulogistic headlines; the left-leaning news media couldn't help showering the Minnesota congresswoman with praise for her performance, either:

-- The liberal Mother Jones magazine deemed her one of two "big winners," second only to the clear frontrunner Mitt Romney. The government-suckling platoon of anti-Republican rhetoricians over at NPR described her as "savvy," "disciplined," and both "polished and confident." The New York Times said she was "competent" and "knowledgeable."

-- Time magazine's senior political analyst, Mark Halperin, called Bachmann's debate performance "impressive" and "smooth" – and said that she appeared "polished, serene and in command." Halperin predicted that with her "energized ground game" she could have a "real shot" at the nomination, under the right circumstances, as she's surrounded herself with "a top-shelf team of veteran advisers" and has proven herself as a "formidable fundraiser" who likely will be able to afford the TV airtime necessary to compete on the national level.

-- The Washington Post described the debate as "a coming-out party" for Bachmann – "a 120-minute declaration that she is someone to be reckoned with in the race," and left-leaning WaPo columnist Ezra Klein said "[Bachmann's] candidacy has mostly been greeted as a longshot bid, but on the stage last night, she came across as one of the primary's clear heavyweights.

-- Jonathan Chait, The New Republic's "liberal hawk" senior editor, wrote prior to the debate that "the prospect of a more conservative candidate winning the nomination is very real, and the field for such a candidate is wide open." The two top-tier candidates, Romney and Huntsman, are "ideologically and religiously unacceptable to large segments of the party base," he said. "The candidate best positioned to win this constituency is Michelle Bachmann." 

-- And after the debate, Chait added: "The skepticism about Bachmann's prospects reflects an antiquated assumption that there's a natural ceiling within the GOP on the support base of a hard-core religious conservative. Yet both the movement and the party have changed in ways that make that less and less true." 

The list goes on, but the point has been made, so let us stop here and ask: What? Really? Who? How?

Support insanity at MicheleBachmann.com 

There are only two ways to interpret this phenomenon: either the mainstream and left-wing media outlets are collaborating in some sort of covert shadow campaign meant to hand Bachmann the GOP nomination by elevating her status and promulgating her less extreme characteristics to the masses as a best-case scenario, and, at the very least, to cause mass devastation for the moderate conservatives, such as Romney, Huntsman and Tim Pawlenty, who might actually have a chance of beating Obama in 2012; or the politics junkies who watched the debate were so dumb-founded by Bachmann's ability to finish sentences, articulate policy positions, and speak to a national audience without debauching details of our shared history, our Constitution, or basic economic principles, that they fell in love with the partisan windbag simply because she surpassed their expectations.

Not being much for conspiracies, I'm going with the latter.

Michael J.W. Stickings, the founder of this blog, may have put it best when he wrote that Bachmann "won" (his word and his emphasis) "mainly by showing that she can actually speak publicly without her head spinning 'round and vomit spewing from her mouth."

In other words, she was the quote-unquote "clear winner" (Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone) because she didn't answer the softball questions from CNN moderator John King with long-form conspiracy theories about Sharia law, the Chinese yen replacing the dollar, and abortion bunkers hidden underneath the White House; because she "kept her insanity bottled up" (ibid.); and because her head didn't explode when everyone expected it would. 

Now, the average reader may not see how not looking like a fool is synonymous with victory, and in the real world it is not. But in such a highly invasive and scrutinizing media culture, where politicians are trained to avoid the unmastered art of ad lib, to stick to the script and stay on point for fear their gaffe goes viral and their careers dance the southern spiral, there is rarely a political move that isn't endlessly brainstormed, vetted, analyzed, and filtered through the party leadership (or, in this case, the campaign staff) before it is presented to the public. Reporters and columnists are well aware of this fact, which is why live events such as the GOP debate have the potential to be so entertaining. Politicians may spend hours practicing the party's regurgitated talking points, but before a live audience and without a teleprompter there are no video edits, no delete buttons, no news release revisions.

And that is why Bachmann "won" the debate and has emerged as a serious contender. Whereas most politicians rarely stray from the comfort zones of their rehearsed soundbites and bland policy platforms, Bachmann is lucky to look human in front of a camera. Whereas most candidates were expected to stick to the issues between unrelenting assaults against all things Obama, Bachmann took a left turn from her regular radical route to work and appeared just as sane as the rest of the field. 

She stayed on script, as those brave individuals who suffered through the two hours of regurgitated conservative platitudes can attest, but most importantly she stuck to a safe, popular, and party-approved script that was not at all what the mainstream media expected to hear.

Granted, she said nothing new, exciting, or even memorable during the debate – other than perhaps her non-answer about whether she preferred Johnny Cash or Elvis. ("Both, both," she said). All of her responses were made up of the same pro-life, anti-taxes, anti-EPA, anti-regulation, anti-everything-Obama-has-enacted attack-dog rhetoric that every other candidate is spewing.

RealClearPolitics.com

Her statement that "Obama is a one-term president" may have spurred resounding applause from the Republican audience in attendance, but it wasn't any more realistic than when Dick Cheney said it, or when Mitch McConnell said it, or when Reince Priebus said it. Her promise to repeal "Obamacare" may have titillated the taste buds of anti-socialist Kool-Aid drinkers, but it wasn't any less idealistic than when John Boehner promised it, when Eric Cantor promised it, or when any of the other six candidates on stage for the GOP debate promised it that very night.

Bachmann defied expectations not by proposing detailed economic policies or common sense debt reduction plans, but by not looking like the nuthouse escapee she usually presents to the world.

It wasn't intriguing or exciting or inspiring, but it was portrayed that way simply because the media was expecting a right-wing demagogue to come on stage and start speaking in tongues, and instead they saw a confident and seemingly normal human being expressing herself in complete sentences.

The reaction from the media would be no different if Charlie Sheen entered the race and kept his nostrils free of the Devil's dandruff long enough to make it to a commercial break. His ability to transition from his usual persona into a coherent talking head would so mangle the neurological connections of the mainstream media elite that they probably would consider him "a heavyweight" too.

And for that achievement Bachmann deserves an Emmy Award for best actress.

It doesn't mean she ought to president, however.

I'm not one to dish out advice to the right, but it would behoove Republicans, particularly those of the Tea Party persuasion, to keep in mind the obvious fact that primary races are not the same as general elections. One guarantees a victory and requires only partisan fearmongering and divisive threats about the future of our free republic if it continues to be ruled by a socialmarxommunist. The other guarantees only unfettered scrutiny, requires something that at least resembles a legislative record, and hinges on the ability to demonstrate widespread appeal to religiously apathetic voters, politically moderate middle class Americans, and socially phlegmatic independents, not just to the fringe base.

The conventional wisdom from the left, at least before the debate, was that Bachmann was a national joke, a socially extreme but politically powerless right-wing demagogue – a Bible-thumping anti-Darwinist whose base of supporters comprise the outnumbered but outspoken Tea Party populists, constitutional revolutionaries, birthers, truthers, and anti-government conspiracy theorists whose media time far outweighs their electoral influence – and that, because of the social, political, and cultural polarization she and her ilk represent, she would be an ideal GOP nominee, in the eyes of the left, to challenge President Obama in the 2012 election... because she would lose.

I don't believe the conventional wisdom has changed. But for the moment, the media's handling of Bachmann definitely has. Whereas before she was knocked around with heavyweight gloves (or brass knuckles, depending on the authenticity of the source's claims of objectivity), the post-election Bachmann so shocked the world with her split-personality theatrics that the mass media did what the mass media do best: they transformed their speechlessness into rapturous news reports full of complimentary prose and hyperbolized potential.

The fact that the majority of these reports were written without irony says something about the survival of "objectivity" in the industry. The fact that all of the reports either eloquently exculpated or outright ignored her disqualifying characteristics says something about the power of a "shock and awe" campaign.

The Tea Party voice was going to be heard this primary season even without Bachmann in the race. Now it will be felt, as the media have slipped on the kid gloves in their flattering reflections of her allegedly stellar debate performance.

Everyone knows that a thriving democracy depends on an informed electorate. Those who are tasked with educating the American people ought to remember the power of their words. And for their part, the American people ought to remember that just as sanity is not synonymous with victory, neither is hype synonymous with legitimacy. Like primaries and general elections, there is a stark difference between the two.

(Cross-posted at Muddy Politics.)

WARNING: GOP presidential candidates cause brain damage, coma & media-assisted suicide during CNN debate

By Nicholas Wilbur

What an embarrassing performance by the Republican presidential candidates during the CNN debate Monday evening. 

The voting public's general lack of enthusiasm for any one candidate was reinforced by their anti-Obama bandwagon harping – blaming him for everything from Bush's bailout to the price of tea in China (it's cheaper) – and their hollow promises to right every alleged wrong that this country has ever seen. They offered nothing but clichéd, tired, and overly rehearsed talking points about how much they love our troops, how much they sympathize with those effected by the recession, how much they worry about their children and grandchildren, and how much of a better job they would do if they were president.

ChristianPost

We are no closer to a Republican candidate than we were yesterday, and if the debates continue to provide no more than political platitudes and make-believe prescriptions for solving the country’s problems – if the candidates can't go beyond promising blanket repeals of everything Obama has done – then they are securing their own fate as uninspiring, unelectable, and unqualified talking heads. This was a waste of time.  

I'm sure I am not alone in feeling dumber for having tuned in to this poor excuse for a debate. 

My reactions to the debate, in reverse order, via Twitter:

@MuddyPolitics: Bachmann is using multi-syllable words during CNN debate: "vital," then falls back on "the," to," "it," "I."

@MuddyPolitics:Pawlenty, in answering question about bringing home U.S. troops from Afghanistan: I just want to say thank you…

@MuddyPolitics: Coming up: withdrawal or don't withdrawal troops from Afghanistan? expect mass anti-Obama lectures. 

@MuddyPolitics: Santorum's only chance in 2012 was to have a presence at the debates. He doesn't. He's done.

@MuddyPolitics: Summary of #CNNDebate #GOPdebate : get rid of the courts, the federal government & Congress – that is, the U.S. government. Problem solved.

@MuddyPolitics: Cain doesn't believe in the 14th Amendment. Must have consulted Palin on that answer. #GOPfail 

@MuddyPolitics This is weird to say, but Ron Paul is the most sane, most realistic of the bunch. I know...I know... #oxymoron 

@MuddyPolitics: Ron Paul: protect our borders, not those between Iraq and Afghanistan. 

@MuddyPolitics: Bachmann stands for life, and gets a round of applause. No pro-death candidates so far... 

@MuddyPolitics: Bachman: I've fucked up 5 of my own children, 23 foster children. Poor bastards. 

@MuddyPolitics Santorum: we need 2 look @ the authenticity of a candidate – throws Romney under the bus, & for good reason. #abortion

@MuddyPolitics: Bachmann would consult "commanders in chief" over DADT. Past presidents?

@MuddyPolitics: Pawlenty says, "I was in a union." He just lost all his chances of winning the nomination. 

@MuddyPolitics: Cain doesn't know what "right to work" is.

@MuddyPolitics: Newt's second accusation of Obama policy being "stupid"

@MuddyPolitics: Pawlenty's only valid quote of the night: "We live in the United States of America." True...true... 

@MuddyPolitics: Santorum mentions "trickle down." #GOPfail

@MuddyPolitics: Bachmann uses her hands a lot when talking. Especially when talking about liberals. #CrazyArmCircles

@MuddyPolitics: Paul: I have no uplifting metaphors, just boring details. Hence my popularity.

@MuddyPolitics: Bachmann "We're going to win...President Obama is a one-term president!" 

@MuddyPolitics: Bachmann: Tea Party is a group of "disaffected Democrats." hahahahahaha

@MuddyPolitics: Newt cites Heritage Foundation. Bravo! 

@MuddyPolitics: Romney: "I can't wait to debate him." Declares he's the GOP's nominee!!! 

@MuddyPolitics: I think American Idol is more stimulating than this. 

@MuddyPolitics: Ohhh... #Obamneycare comes up. Mitt says he'll overturn #Obamacare. Goes on defensive about Romneycare. Hilarious.

@MuddyPolitics: Bachmann "will not rest" until she overturns #Obamacare ... 

@MuddyPolitics: These aren't candidates, they're candidebts. Intellectually speaking. 

@MuddyPolitics: Ron Paul says Federal Reserve caused the financial bubble. Government's fault. Duh. & people don't understand. Duh. 

@MuddyPolitics: Ron Paul can't think of anything Obama has done to boost the economy... wow... 

@MuddyPolitics: Bachmann says: "I filed my paperwork today to seek the office of the president today." Today she did that. 

@MuddyPolitics: Newt: "They ought to start creating jobs." Great details so far in this debate.

@MuddyPolitics: Romney pulls "Pelosi/Reid" card in demagoguing Obama." FUCKING ORIGINAL!

@MuddyPolitics: Romney gives kudos to Pawlenty for recognizing that the president needs to go. BRILLIANT! 

@MuddyPolitics: CNN asks, where were the jobs after Bush's tax cuts? Pawlenty doesn't answer, but talks to time limit.

@MuddyPolitics: Santorum says "I'm...uh...not...uhh...wait...what was the question?"

(Cross-posted at Muddy Politics.)