Romney, Buoyed by Debate, Shows Off His Softer Side

Facing off against President Obama in Denver, Mr. Romney had been the candidate they had longed to see all year: funny (joking about the “romantic” evening he and Mr. Obama were spending on the president’s 20th wedding anniversary), commanding (challenging Mr. Obama on taxes and government spending) and even warm (placing his right hand over his heart at the end of the debate, in an homage to his supporters in the crowd).

On Friday night, at a rally here, his campaign seemed determined not to let that more emotive, three-dimensional Mitt Romney slip away. Before the crowd of several thousand, Mr. Romney shared stories of friends who had died.

Perhaps his most moving anecdote — about David Oparowski, a 14-year-old boy with leukemia to whom Mr. Romney had ministered — first made an appearance at the Republican National Convention in Tampa, when David’s parents talked about how Mr. Romney had tended to their son, a member of his church ward in Belmont, Mass. But Mr. Romney had never before mentioned the experience on the stump.

Mr. Romney recounted how, as he sat in David’s hospital room, the teenager called him “Brother Romney” and asked him about “what’s next.”

“I talked to him about what I believe is next,” said Mr. Romney, recalling that a few days later he got a call from David asking if he would help write his will.

“So I went to David’s bedside and got a piece of legal paper, made it look very official,” he continued. “And then David proceeded to tell me what he wanted to give his friends. Talked about his fishing rod, and who would get that. He talked about his skateboard, who’d get that. And his rifle, that went to his brother.”

He concluded: “I loved that young man.”

Mr. Romney also talked about the recent death of a graduate school friend who had become a quadriplegic, and a sharpshooter killed in Afghanistan.

He repeated two of the stories on Saturday night in Apopka, Fla., north of Orlando, suggesting that the effort to connect emotionally would become part of how he presents himself to voters.

An adviser said that Mr. Romney decided on his own that he wanted to tell those stories onstage. But the move was also couched in a broader campaign strategy to encourage Mr. Romney to reveal a more caring, personal side of himself, a counter to his reputation as a data-driven technocrat.

To that end, on Thursday, Mr. Romney also appeared on Sean Hannity’s Fox News show, where he seemed to repudiate his own comments about “47 percent” of Americans who, he said at a secretly recorded fund-raiser in May, considered themselves “victims” and were dependent on the government.

“I said something that’s just completely wrong,” Mr. Romney said, referring to the comments. “My life has shown that I care about 100 percent.”

The campaign has begun showing a 10-minute biographical video before rallies and speeches. Mr. Romney is shown roughhousing with his sons when they were youngsters, encouraging his wife and following the public service footsteps of his father, George W. Romney, the former governor of Michigan. In one scene, Mr. Romney begins talking about his wife, gushing, “Ahh, she’s gorgeous.” Russ Schriefer, the senior strategist charged with making the film, said he got that footage by showing Mr. Romney a picture of Ann as a teenager and asking him to reflect.

Mrs. Romney, who has privately argued that the campaign should display the empathetic man she loves, has also become a public advocate for her husband’s “extraordinary compassion for others,” as she said Friday night.

Appearing buoyed by his widely acclaimed debate performance, the Romney on display this week was a looser, more relaxed one. The day after the debate, he could be seen joking with aides on his charter plane, and he made two unscheduled stops: one Thursday morning to address the Conservative Political Action Conference in Denver, and another Friday evening, when he and Mrs. Romney stopped at La Teresita, a Cuban restaurant in Tampa, to greet diners.

At his rally here on Friday, Mr. Romney’s first story involved a friend named Billy, a quadriplegic who had come to one of his rallies about three weeks ago and, with the help of his wife, made his way through the crowd.

“I reached down and I put my hand on Billy’s shoulder and I whispered into his ear, and I said, ‘Billy, God bless you, I love you,’ ” Mr. Romney said. “And he whispered right back to me — and I couldn’t quite hear what he said.”

Billy, he said, “died the next day.”

The crowd became hushed, seemingly as moved by listening to the tale as Mr. Romney was by telling it.

Trip Gabriel contributed reporting from Apopka, Fla.

View the original article here

Immigrant debate just simmering pot of gamesmanship

WASHINGTON

Now that the immigration "crisis" has solved itself, this is the perfect time for Congress and the president to agree on a package of sensible, real-world reforms.

Yeah, right, and it's also the perfect time for pigs to grow wings and take flight.

Perhaps this week's most significant news was a report from the nonpartisan Pew Hispanic Center showing that net migration from Mexico to the United States has slowed to a halt and may actually have reversed. That's right: There may be more people leaving this country to live in Mexico than leaving Mexico to live here.

End of the "crisis" -- which wasn't really a crisis at all, except in overwhelmed border-state cities such as Phoenix. There's no longer the slightest excuse for histrionics about the alleged threat to our way of life from invading hordes intent on -- shudder -- working hard and raising their families.

Why the turnaround? The report cites "many factors, including the weakened U.S. job and housing- construction markets, heightened border enforcement, a rise in deportations, the growing dangers associated with illegal border crossings, the long-term decline in Mexico's birthrates and broader economic conditions in Mexico."

To me, all that makes perfect sense. Whether they have papers or not, immigrants are rational. As a general rule, they don't come here to commit crimes; they could do that at home if they wanted. They don't come here to laze around and enjoy government benefits because, well, what benefits would those be? They come to work.

But the U.S. economy fell off a cliff, meaning there is less work to be had. Mexico's economy, while not unscathed, is improving. And the Obama administration has dramatically stepped up border enforcement while carrying out a record number of deportations. Suddenly, both for Mexicans who considered immigrating legally and those who might have been tempted to come without documents, the risk-reward equation has changed.

According to the Pew report, there are an estimated 11million illegal immigrants in the United States; six out of 10 are Mexican. The number of immigrants without papers has actually been falling. Wouldn't this be a perfect time to take a deep breath and start talking about reasonable ways to engineer a more rational immigration policy?

Yes, it would, but don't hold your breath. Apparently, we're going to have a lot of shouting without actually trying to find a solution. On Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard arguments on the constitutionality of Arizona's "driving while brown" law that instructs police to challenge and, if necessary, apprehend anyone they suspect of being an illegal immigrant. The law forbids racial profiling, but the truth is that it guarantees profiling.

The administration argues that the state law usurps the federal government's prerogative to set immigration policy. The court is expected to decide the case this summer, and the ruling's impact may be less practical -- since illegal immigration, I repeat, is already on the decline -- than political.

Democrats will react with thunderous outrage if the court upholds the Arizona law -- but if you stand outside the back room where the pollsters and campaign strategists work, you might hear the slapping of high fives. Anything that draws attention to the Republican Party's extremist position on immigration will only reinforce a tendency that Mitt Romney recently characterized as "doom" -- the headlong rush of Latino voters into a waiting Democratic embrace.

Barack Obama won a remarkable two-thirds of the Latino vote in 2008. This year, according to the polls, he's running even stronger among the biggest minority group in the country. If Republicans don't find a way to win more Latino support, Obama will be hard to beat. In the long term, if Latinos become a more-or-less permanent Democratic constituency like African-Americans have, the GOP will inexorably go the way of the Whigs.

So, that is what this year's immigration "debate" will be about: how to reap political gain and avoid political loss.

We don't need to build a giant wall along the Rio Grande; Obama has already "hardened" the border. We need a Reagan-style amnesty that would allow the great majority of undocumented immigrants to stay, along with reforms that give Mexicans and others a realistic hope of being able to come here someday.

Assuming they want to.

Copyright 2012 The Arizona Republic|azcentral.com. All rights reserved.For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.

Posted

View the original article here

U.S. House GOP look to reshape birth control debate

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. House Republican leaders are looking for a way to reshape the debate over the administration's new rule on birth-control insurance coverage before moving ahead with a bid to nullify the requirement.

Representative Jeff Fortenberry, who has introduced legislation on the issue, acknowledged hesitation by some fellow Republicans to take on the incendiary issue. But he said a delay could give Republicans time to recast the issue as a question of religious freedom rather than women's rights.

We'll keep trying to appropriately frame the debate about this core American principle," Fortenberry said.

Representative Pete Sessions, who heads the House Republican campaign committee, said party leaders are not backing off. “We're not hesitant to do anything," Sessions said. The successful rain dance has a lot to do with timing."

House Republicans have taken a cautious approach after the Senate, mostly on party lines, rejected a measure that would have allowed employers with moral objections to opt out of birth control coverage and other services.

The administration's plan would require employers, including charities and other religious institutions, to provide contraception coverage at no extra charge.

Senator Roy Blunt, who offered the Senate measure, said Democrats' framing of the issue as a women's rights question proved to be a problem. We're not going to win that debate on birth control," said Blunt. But the debate over religious liberty is not going to go away."

The issue has made some Republicans cautious in an election year, when most voters are concerned about U.S. economic growth and job creation, said one aide.

A spokeswoman for House Majority Leader Eric Cantor said Republican leaders were still discussing with members how best to move forward.

Fortenberry said it is unclear whether his legislation will be the bill that moves forward in the House. But he believes he has the votes to ensure passage.

FIRST OBAMA, THEN REPUBLICANS

Obama faced an uproar from religious groups over the administration's birth control requirement. But he moved quickly to quell it by altering the rule so employers with religious affiliations would not be required to offer free birth control to workers.

Insurers would instead bear the onus to provide coverage.

Republicans said the compromise did not go far enough and announced plans to move forward with measures that would override the ruling.

Incendiary comments by conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh, who called Georgetown University law student Sandra Fluke a “slut" and “prostitute" for speaking out in support of the Obama policy, helped Democrats reframe the issue to their political advantage, analysts said.

Limbaugh, who has lost advertisers who found his comments objectionable, has since apologized.

It looked like an attack on women and women are the majority of the electorate," said Jennifer Lawless of the Women and Politics Institute at American University.

A Kaiser Family Foundation survey last week of 1,500 adults showed nearly two-thirds of Americans favor Obama's policy, including clear majorities of Catholics and evangelicals.

A number of religious groups have filed lawsuits challenging the new rule.

Republican strategist Ron Bonjean, a former congressional aide, said House Speaker John Boehner has good reason to schedule a vote on a measure to overturn the rule.

While jobs and the economy are the number one issue, this is one of those niche issues that can really make a difference in the election among Catholic voters," he said.

They respond well to the issue of religious freedoms," he added. If Catholic congregations hear that Republicans are on their side, that can only help them in November."

View the original article here

House Republicans look to reshape birth control debate

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. House Republican leaders are looking for a way to reshape the debate over the administration's new rule on birth-control insurance coverage before moving ahead with a bid to nullify the requirement.

Representative Jeff Fortenberry, who has introduced legislation on the issue, acknowledged hesitation by some fellow Republicans to take on the incendiary issue. But he said a delay could give Republicans time to recast the issue as a question of religious freedom rather than women's rights.

"We'll keep trying to appropriately frame the debate about this core American principle," Fortenberry said.

Representative Pete Sessions, who heads the House Republican campaign committee, said party leaders are not backing off. "We're not hesitant to do anything," Sessions said. "The successful rain dance has a lot to do with timing."

House Republicans have taken a cautious approach after the Senate, mostly on party lines, rejected a measure that would have allowed employers with moral objections to opt out of birth control coverage and other services.

The administration's plan would require employers, including charities and other religious institutions, to provide contraception coverage at no extra charge.

Senator Roy Blunt, who offered the Senate measure, said Democrats' framing of the issue as a women's rights question proved to be a problem. "We're not going to win that debate on birth control," said Blunt. "But the debate over religious liberty is not going to go away."

The issue has made some Republicans cautious in an election year, when most voters are concerned about U.S. economic growth and job creation, said one aide.

A spokeswoman for House Majority Leader Eric Cantor said Republican leaders were still discussing with members how best to move forward.

Fortenberry said it is unclear whether his legislation will be the bill that moves forward in the House. But he believes he has the votes to ensure passage.

FIRST OBAMA, THEN REPUBLICANS

Obama faced an uproar from religious groups over the administration's birth control requirement. But he moved quickly to quell it by altering the rule so employers with religious affiliations would not be required to offer free birth control to workers.

Insurers would instead bear the onus to provide coverage.

Republicans said the compromise did not go far enough and announced plans to move forward with measures that would override the ruling.

Incendiary comments by conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh, who called Georgetown University law student Sandra Fluke a "slut" and "prostitute" for speaking out in support of the Obama policy, helped Democrats reframe the issue to their political advantage, analysts said.

Limbaugh, who has lost advertisers who found his comments objectionable, has since apologized.

"It looked like an attack on women and women are the majority of the electorate," she Jennifer Lawless of the Women and Politics Institute at American University.

A Kaiser Family Foundation survey last week of 1,500 adults showed nearly two-thirds of Americans favor Obama's policy, including clear majorities of Catholics and evangelicals.

A number of religious groups have filed lawsuits challenging the new rule.

Republican strategist Ron Bonjean, a former congressional aide, said House Speaker John Boehner has good reason to schedule a vote on a measure to overturn the rule.

"While jobs and the economy are the number one issue, this is one of those niche issues that can really make a difference in the election among Catholic voters," he said.

"They respond well to the issue of religious freedoms," he added. "If Catholic congregations hear that Republicans are on their side, that can only help them in November."

(Reporting By Donna Smith; editing by Marilyn W. Thompson and Todd Eastham)

View the original article here

What You Missed While Not Watching the Last South Carolina GOP Debate (Time.com)

0 minutes. The CNN spaceship is set to launch, with blue gels on the lights that give the auditorium an alien aquarium vibe. It's the 17th GOP debate of 2012 cycle. Roll the intro montage: "Welcome to the South, the heart of the Republican Party," says the hokey disembodied voice, doing his best imitation of a Stephen Colbert send up, "where tradition lives and values matter." What? Do Iowa and New Hampshire not care about tradition and values? Nonsense. But we push on. We are veterans. We have learned to let the silly slide.

2 minutes. Each candidate gets a shout out. Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney is "the frontrunner." Texas Rep. Ron Paul is "the insurgent." Rick Santorum has "renewed momentum," though recent polls show it is in the wrong direction. Newt Gingrich is "on the rise." Then each of the men take the stage with their variation of a high school dweeb strut. Romney is third, and the most talkative. "Hi guys," he says to the others. "Newt," he says shaking Gingrich's hand. "Ha ha," he says, because perhaps it is funny to be shaking Gingrich's hand. "And then there were four," he adds, because that is all that remain. (See "What You Missed While Not Watching the Final Iowa Debate.")

5 minutes. CNN pomp is unending, as usual. After Twitter and Facebook mentions, some military cadets sing the national anthem. The crowd turns to a flat-screen projection of Old Glory. "That was fabulous. Absolutely fabulous," CNN host John King says afterward. One day the debate will start. Then he asks the candidates to make short opening statements. For those who speak Republican, this means brag about your brood.

7 minutes. Santorum begins, noting his "wife Karen and our seven children." He also thanks Iowa "for a little delayed but most welcome victory there." Romney beats Santorum, not in Iowa, but in brood count. "I'm married now 42 years. I have five sons, five daughters-in-law, 16 grandkids, and they're the joy of my life." The married-a-long-time thing is a knock on thrice-married Gingrich, though Romney would probably swear to his grave that this is not true. Gingrich eschews brood stats for geographic pandering. "As a Georgian, it feels good to be back at home in the South," he says. Paul mentions that he has been elected to Congress 12 times, 30 years as an obstetrician, and "I'm the only U.S. veteran on this stage tonight." (See "What You Missed While Not Watching the GOP National-Security Debate.")

9 minutes. Finally a question, and it's a doozy. Would Gingrich like to respond to his second wife's claim that he wanted an open marriage more than a decade ago? "No, but I will," he says, looking ornery. The crowd likes his attitude. "I am appalled that you would begin a presidential debate on a topic like that." The crowd is on its feet applauding. "To take an ex-wife and make it two days before the primary a significant question for a presidential campaign is as close to despicable as anything I can imagine." The place is going nuts. Gingrich goes on for a while. Then he adds, as if it no longer matters, "The story is false."

11 minutes. Gingrich is still going. "I am tired of the elite media protecting Barack Obama by attacking Republicans." A second standing ovation. If being President only required an ability to rile the public into rage against the press, America wouldn't need an election. There would be a coronation.

12 minutes. King asks Santorum if this open marriage/mistress stuff is an issue. Santorum says yes, as softly as he can. "These are issues of our lives and what we did in our lives," he says. "They are issues of character for people to consider."

13 minutes. Romney won't go there. "John, let's get on to the real issues is all I've got to say." The crowd likes that too.

14 minutes. Paul uses his turn at the Gingrich mistress plate to say media corporations are bad. "What about the corporations that run the media?" he asks, before joining in the media's attack by adding apropos of nothing in particular that he has been married 54 years.

15 minutes. New topic. Unemployment. Name three things you would do to help reduce it. Paul says "sound currency," less regulations and near-zero income taxes. Gingrich says repeal Dodd-Frank, increase domestic oil and gas exploration, and radically overhaul the Corps of Engineers.

18 minutes. King follows up by asking Gingrich to attack Romney for his work at Bain Capital. Gingrich indulges, describing "Bain Capital's model, which was to take over a company and dramatically leverage it, leave it with a great deal of debt, made it less likely to survive."

19 minutes. Romney is asked to respond, and attacks Obama. "You've got to stop the spread of crony capitalism. He gives General Motors to the UAW. He takes $500 million and sticks it into Solyndra. He -- he stacks the labor stooges on the NLRB so they can say no to Boeing and take care of their friends in the labor movement," he says. The crowd rewards the Obama bashing with applause.

20 minutes. King persists on Bain, asking Romney to explain how he comes up with the figure of 120,000 jobs created at the firm. Romney says that is what four companies he started now employ. "I'm someone who believes in free enterprise," he continues. "I think Adam Smith was right. And I'm going to stand and defend capitalism across this country, throughout this campaign." Then he turns it up a notch. "I know we're going to get hit hard from President Obama, but we're going to stuff it down his throat and point out it is capitalism and freedom that makes America strong." The foie gras attack.

22 minutes. Santorum distinguishes between regular capitalism and the "high finance" of Romney. "We need a party that just doesn't talk about high finance and cutting corporate taxes or cutting the top tax rates," Santorum says. "We need to talk about how we're going to put men and women in this country, who built this country, back to work in this country in the manufacturing sector of our economy." He's the Joe Biden of the GOP. Pure Scranton.

24 minutes. Talk about the challenges faced by returning military veterans. Everyone on stage is concerned. Paul says he worries about the high rate of suicide. Santorum says there should be job preferences. Romney says he wants the states to do much of the work. Gingrich says cut taxes and help veterans with a program like the G.I. Bill after World War II.

31 minutes. Question on ObamaCare. Romney says repeal it and replace it with something "like a market, a consumer market, as opposed to have it run like Amtrak and the post office." This is not an accurate description of how ObamaCare works, but let it slide. Move on. Gingrich says he'd "repeal all of it because I so deeply distrust the congressional staffs that I would not want them to be able to pick and choose which things they cut." By this logic, congressional staff would never get to do any legislating. But let it slide. Move on. (See "What You Missed While Not Watching the CNBC 'Oops' Republican Debate.")

35 minutes. Santorum uses this opportunity to attack both Romney and Gingrich for once supporting the individual mandate in ObamaCare. He calls Romney's health reforms in Massachusetts "an abject disaster." Romney objects. "First of all, the system in my state is not a government-run system," he says. This is true, but it is kind of funny to hear Romney say it, since he just mischaracterized ObamaCare as a "government-run system." Let it slide. Move on.

39 minutes. They go back and forth for a while, covering old ground. At one point, Romney does another "Ha ha," to express condescension at the attacks on him. When it comes around to Gingrich, he changes the subject by saying, again, that he wants 3-hour debates with Obama. "I will let him use a teleprompter. I would just rely on knowledge. We'll do fine." A real crowd-pleaser that Gingrich.

42 minutes. After more needling from Santorum, Gingrich admits he was wrong about the individual mandate.

43 minutes. Paul finally gets a chance to talk again. He says government should not be involved in medicine. Then he pivots to a discussion about why U.S. military bases overseas are bad, as are recent military adventures.

45 minutes. That brings us to the first break. Before cutting to commercial, King says Gingrich has released his tax returns while the candidates have been on stage. Nice trick. Can we expect gimics like this in future debates?

49 minutes. We're back. King promptly gets Gingrich and Santorum fighting again. "Grandiosity has never been a problem with Newt Gingrich," Santorum says. "I don't want a nominee that I have to worry about going out and looking at the paper the next day and worrying about what he's going to say next." That is a line taken almost word-for-word from the Romney campaign. Then Santorum says he finished ahead of Gingrich in New Hampshire, which is not true. Gingrich got 49 more votes. Nonetheless, Santorum accuses Gingrich of having "not cogent thoughts."

53 minutes. Gingrich responds by listing pretty much everything good that happened during his two decade run in the U.S. House. Then he says, "I think grandiose thoughts. This is a grandiose country of big people doing big things." Applause of course. More tit for tat follows. But no more fancy words like grandiose.

56 minutes. Romney tries to chime in by saying that this squabbling just shows he's the outsider who can fix Washington. But Romney does it really awkwardly, describing himself as someone "who's lived in the real streets of America." Not clear if he is referring to the old family mansion in Belmont, Mass., or the beach house in La Jolla, Calif., or the Deer Valley, Utah, lodge he once owned. Or maybe another "real street" he has yet to disclose. In the middle of the answer, Romney gets lost. Then he finds his way, and attacks Gingrich for not really having as much to do with Ronald Reagan as he claims. "You're mentioned once in Ronald Reagan's diary," Romney says.

58 minutes. Gingrich shoots back. "You did very well under the rules that we created to make it easier for entrepreneurs to go out and do things," he says to Romney. "I don't recall a single day saying, 'Oh, thank heavens Washington is there for me,'" Romney responds.

59 minutes. Question for Paul. Will he release his tax returns? "I'd probably be embarrassed to put my financial statement up against their income," he jokes of the others on the stage.

60 minutes. Romney cleans up his big mistake from the last debate, and says he will release his tax returns in April. Then, as he always does when uncomfortable, he attacks Obama. "You've got a President who's played 90 rounds of golf while there are 25 million Americans out of work," Romney says.

63 minutes. Santorum says he will release his returns as soon as he gets home and prints them off his computer.

64 minutes. King asks Romney if he will release 12 years of his tax returns, like his father George Romney did when he ran in 1968. Romney smiles at the mention of his father, but doesn't answer the question. "Maybe," he says, as the crowd starts to boo. "You know, I don't know how many years I'll release."

66 minutes. King asks a question premised on the fact that the best example of American corporate success at the moment, Apple Inc., has 500,000 employees in China and much fewer in the United States. This allows Santorum to get another Joe Biden riff going about revitalizing American manufacturing. Paul sees the question as an opportunity to deliver an economics lesson on the benefits of trade. Then Paul and Santorum bicker about Santorum's one-time aversion to a national right-to-work bill.

71 minutes. King asks a question about the recent bills in Congress that would put new restrictions on websites to protect intellectual property. He also discloses that CNN's parent company, Time Warner, which is also TIME's parent company, is a big supporter of these bills. The mention of the corporate monster responsible for The Hangover II and Harry Potter VII earns lots of boos from the crowd. "You're asking a conservative about the economic interests of Hollywood," Gingrich jokes. Bottom line, Romney, Gingrich and Paul are against the bills. Santorum is against the bills as well, but more eager to find some new rules to further protect intellectual property. "Where in America does it say that anything goes?" Santorum asks. There are some places, but Santorum has probably never been to them.

76 minutes. Break number two. Say what you want about the evils of Time Warner, but at least it allows CNN to go light on the commercial breaks.

78 minutes. We're back. No we're not. Another commercial break. Ignore the corporate backscratching at minute 76. Another movie made by Time Warner: Cats and Dogs -- The Revenge of Kitty Galore.

81 minutes. Back for real this time. The candidates are asked for one thing they would do over in the campaign. Gingrich says he would skip the first three months of the campaign when he "hired regular consultants and tried to figure how to be a normal candidate." Romney jokes that he would "get 25 more votes in Iowa." That's funny. Then Romney adds, "I guess I also would go back and take every moment I spent talking about one of the guys on the stage and spend that time talking about Barack Obama." This is disingenuous, but on message, and thus an apt summary of Romney's apparent strength and weakness. (As Romney says it, his campaign is blitzing reporters with more anti-Gingrich agitprop by e-mail.) Paul and Santorum can't think of anything they would do differently.

84 minutes. Immigration time. Same as before. Build a fence. Etc. Just look through previous "What You Missed" summaries to get the idea.

95 minutes. Abortion time. Gingrich attacks Romney for changing his mind on the issue. "Governor Romney has said that he had a experience in a lab and became pro-life, and I accept that," Gingrich says. Experience in a lab. Priceless. Then Gingrich says that Romney still appointed pro-choice judges, and still allowed for Planned Parenthood to benefit from his state health reforms. Santorum piles on, saying the country needs a pro-life crusader, not just a pro-life politician. It's like a tag team. At one point Gingrich even says, "I'll yield to Senator Santorum." Romney defends himself by pointing out that he had little choice, given the state he was in, and says he really is pro-life.

103 minutes. Paul finally gets a chance to speak again. He gets into a spat with Santorum about his own pro-life record. Paul calls abortion "a violent act" that should be handled by state, not federal, law; Santorum disagrees. At one point, Paul says to Santorum, "You are overly sensitive."

107 minutes. Final break.

111 minutes. We're back. King asks for closing arguments. Paul talks about liberty. Gingrich talks about certain doom if Obama is reelected, and suggests he is the only person who can defeat Obama. Romney lapses into his stump speech, quoting from the Declaration of Independence, and whatnot. Santorum argues that you need a conservative who will draw a sharp contrast with Obama. (See "What You Missed While Not Watching the Las Vegas GOP Debate.")

118 minutes. "That concludes our debate this evening," says King. And so it does. Four candidates still remain. No one knows how many more Republican debates are left. Should they go the way of that one pizza guy, they too won't be missed.

See TIME's Pictures of the Week.

View this article on Time.com

Most Popular on Time.com:

View the original article here

Analysis: Gingrich forces GOP into grueling debate (AP)

COLUMBIA, S.C. – Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich took a giant step Saturday toward becoming the Republican alternative to Mitt Romney that tea partyers and social conservatives have been seeking for months.

Gingrich's come-from-behind win in the South Carolina primary snatches away the quick and easy way for the GOP to pick its presidential nominee. Only days ago, it seemed that party activists would settle for Romney, the former Massachusetts governor who stirs few passions but who has the looks, money, experience and discipline to make a solid case against President Barack Obama in November.

Now, the party cannot avoid a wrenching and perhaps lengthy nomination fight. It can cast its lot with the establishment's cool embodiment of competence, forged in corporate board rooms, or with the anger-venting champion of in-your-face conservatism and grandiose ideas.

It's soul-searching time for Republicans. It might not be pretty.

Romney still might win the nomination, of course. He carries several advantages into Florida and beyond, and party insiders still consider him the front-runner. And it's conceivable that former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum can battle back and take the anti-Romney title from Gingrich. After all, he bested Gingrich in Iowa and New Hampshire.

But Santorum's third-place finish in South Carolina will doubtlessly prompt some conservative leaders to urge him to step aside and back Gingrich, as Texas Gov. Rick Perry did Thursday.

Even if Santorum revives his campaign in Florida, the fundamental intraparty debate will be the same. Voters associate Gingrich and Santorum with social issues such as abortion, and with unyielding fealty to conservative ideals. That's in contrast to Romney's flexibility and past embraces of legalized abortion, gun control and gay rights.

Texas Rep. Ron Paul will stay in the race, but he factors only tangentially in such discussions. His fans are largely a mix of libertarians, isolationists and pacifists, many of whom will abandon the GOP nominee if it's not the Texas congressman.

Strategically, Romney maintains a big edge in money and organization. He faces a dilemma, however. Gingrich resuscitated his struggling campaign in this state with combative debate performances featuring near-contempt for Obama and the news media. Romney likely would love to choke off that supply by drastically reducing the number of debates.

Ducking Gingrich after losing to him in South Carolina would suggest panic or fear, however, and all four candidates are scheduled to debate Monday in Florida.

Gingrich is benefitting "from the inherent animosity and mistrust GOP primary voters have with mainstream media," said Republican strategist Terry Holt. "Their first instinct is to rebel, and that's what they did. The question is whether he can sustain that anger and build it into a legitimate challenge to the frontrunner."

Gingrich tried to stoke that anger with his victory speech Saturday. He referred repeatedly to "elites" in Washington and New York who don't understand or care about working-class Americans. He decried "the growing anti-religious bigotry of our elites."

Gingrich made $3.1 million in 2010, but he nonetheless is tapping middle-class resentment in ways reminiscent of Sarah Palin. "I articulate the deepest-held values in the American people," he said.

Despite their contrasting personalities, Romney and Gingrich don't differ greatly on policy. Both call for lower taxes, less regulation, ending "Obamacare" and a robust military. They promise to cut spending and increase jobs without offering many details of how they would do so in a divided nation and Congress.

Romney vs. Gingrich in some ways mirrors the Democrats' 2008 choice between Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton, which turned mostly on questions of personality, style and biography. The Republicans' choice, however, will plumb deeper veins of emotion and ideology.

Romney appeals to Republicans who want a competent, even-tempered nominee with a track record in business and finance. His backers are willing to overlook his past support of abortion rights and his seeming tone-deafness on money matters — even if it feeds caricatures of him as a tycoon.

Until Saturday, GOP polls had shown Romney easily ahead on the question of who would be Obama's toughest challenger. South Carolina exit polls, however, showed Gingrich with an edge among those who said it was most important that their candidate be able to beat Obama.

Romney will try to regain that advantage in Florida, which votes Jan. 31. It's not clear what strategies will work. In his concession speech Saturday, Romney said Obama has attacked free enterprise and "we cannot defeat that president with a candidate who has joined that very assault on free enterprise."

He was alluding to Gingrich's past criticisms of Romney's record running Bain Capital, a private equity firm. But Gingrich and a friendly super PAC dropped their references to Bain days ago.

Romney hinted at another approach. "Our party can't be led to victory by someone who also has never run a business and never led a state," he said. Gingrich's background didn't seem to bother South Carolina's Republicans, however.

What they've done is steer the primary contest into more emotional, and possibly dangerous, waters. They rewarded a candidate who gave voice to their resentment of the news media, federal bureaucrats and what they see as undeserving welfare recipients and a socialist-leaning president.

Two South Carolina debate moments crystalized Gingrich's rise. Both involved an open disdain for journalists, whether feigned or not.

In Myrtle Beach on Monday, the Martin Luther King holiday, Gingrich acidly told Fox News' Juan Williams that he would teach poor people how to find jobs, and that Obama has put more Americans on food stamps than any other president. Gingrich repeated the food stamp lines in his speech Saturday night.

At Thursday's debate in North Charleston, Gingrich excoriated CNN's John King for raising an ex-wife's claim that Gingrich once asked for an "open marriage," to accommodate his mistress.

Conservatives inside the hall and out seemed to love the tongue-lashing. The details of Marianne Gingrich's allegations, which Gingrich denied almost as an afterthought, seemed to matter much less to voters. That's remarkable in a state whose GOP electorate is nearly two-thirds evangelicals.

Mike McKenna, a Republican strategist, said Gingrich seems to be drawing many people, including tea party activists, who are fairly new to politics. They don't know or care much about Gingrich's legacy of leading the 1994 Republican revolution in Congress, or his subsequently lucrative career as a writer and speaker that sometimes veered from conservative orthodoxies, McKenna said.

Instead, he thinks these voters are reacting emotionally to someone they hope "can take the fight to the president, to the media, to whomever. They are not particularly concerned about what kind of president he will be."

Therein, of course, is the potential peril of a Gingrich candidacy. Along with his verbal fireworks he carries baggage that might give Democrats more to exploit than do Romney's policy flip-flops and record at Bain.

Gingrich's impressive South Carolina victory will force Republicans in Florida and other states to make a hot-or-cool choice.

They can pick the data-driven Harvard MBA grad who smoothed out the Winter Olympics and now runs a by-the-numbers nationwide campaign. Or they can pick the pugnacious firebrand who didn't manage to get his name on the Virginia primary ballot but who wows an angry electorate that can't wait to lay into Obama in debates next fall.

___

EDITOR'S NOTE: Charles Babington covers politics for The Associated Press.

View the original article here

Perry to GOP: I could handle Obama in debate (AP)

WASHINGTON – Republican presidential hopeful Rick Perry says he may not be the best debater, but he's confident he can draw clear distinctions with President Barack Obama onstage next year.

The Texas governor is trying to reassure Republican primary voters in the wide-open nominating contest.

He says he may skip some debates with the other GOP hopefuls between now and the end of January. But he says he's "not worried a bit" about his ability to contrast his plans on the economy and foreign policy with the president's during scheduled debates in the 2012 elections.

Perry's campaign has said he'll participate in at least five more debates against his GOP rivals, including former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.

Perry tells "Fox News Sunday" that he prefers other types of campaigning.

View the original article here

Perry's Debate Performance in Florida Leads to Herman Cain Upset (ContributorNetwork)

COMMENTARY | Rick Perry blew his opportunity to become the Republican nominee for president after his performance in the Florida Republican presidential debate on Thursday. Herman Cain benefited most from Perry's awkward performance in the televised debate before the Florida straw poll.

Cain destroyed Perry, capturing 37.1 percent of the votes to Perry's 15.4 percent and Mitt Romney's 14 percent, according to Yahoo! News. The Republicans attending the debate and the straw poll expressed the need for Republicans to separate themselves from the Democrats, who insist on spending the country into bankruptcy.

The unprecedented margin of victory is the perfect statement from the Florida Republicans. Perry has no chance of getting elected and Romney needs to adopt a more conservative approach. Cain's unpolished political skills do not overshadow his passion and his out of the box ideas.

Cain won this straw poll for several reasons. First is Cain's business sense. Cain is not looking to solve the problems with government intervention. His ideas are to unleash business from government regulations and drastically eliminate government waste.

Cain also made points with his 999 plan. The plan deviates from the flat tax or fair tax ideas being floated for a national sales tax. The plan does institute a 9 percent national sales tax, but it also lowers the tax rate for individuals to a 9 percent flat tax as well.

Instead of being bogged down in name calling and attacking his fellow Republicans, Cain has chosen the campaign to push his views of an American economy that allows businesses large and small to flourish and Americans who are willing to work.

Cain has struggled to attain national attention and this weekend's straw poll shows the discontent among Republicans. Why is he suddenly the flavor of the month in Florida? Perry is a stiff and an unappetizing prospect in a national election against the charisma of Barrack Obama and Romney is too moderate in tea party voter's minds.

The time is perfect for Herman Cain to make huge strides in the race for the Republican presidential nomination. Cain will need to enhance his presentation of his 999 plan and he will also need to adjust some key foreign policy issues to get the mainstream votes needed but his energy and desire make him a potential player in 2012.

View the original article here

TheDC on TV: David Martosko on the GOP field after the Orlando debate (Daily Caller)

On Canada’s Sun News Network Saturday morning, Daily Caller executive editor David Martosko handicapped the GOP primary field with presenter Brian Dunstan in the wake of Thursday night’s Republican candidate debate in Orlando, Florida.

“It’s important to note that there have been some successful candidates who never entered the race until even October or November, a year before the election,” Martosko said. “So it’s definitely not too late for someone else to come in and claim the mantle of being the ‘not Romney’ candidate.”

The large number of primary debates, he said, have “given Ron Paul an unprecedented opportunity to strut his stuff and be taken seriously. In past election cycles Ron Paul has been a bit of a parlor joke … this extreme, out-there candidate that nobody wants to admit they like. But suddenly he’s become a bit more fashionable, and I think [other than Mitt Romney] he’s been the big winner in this.”

Watch:

Read more stories from The Daily Caller

TheDC on TV: David Martosko on the GOP field after the Orlando debate

Italian prosecutors double down, seek life sentence for Amanda Knox

FL governor offers advice to GOP hopefuls

Krauthammer declares Romney 'most conservative candidate who can win' thus far

Buchanan blasts Obama's jobs speech: 'It's a Pearl Harbor attack on the Republicans

View the original article here

Michele Bachmann Must Capitalize on Debate Performance to Win GOP Ticket (ContributorNetwork)

COMMENTARY | Michele Bachmann filed paperwork Monday announcing her candidacy for president of the United States. She made it official by making the announcement at that night's debate on CNN, where, by most accounts, she was the star. Bachmann was enthusiastic, graceful, and quick-witted, exuding confidence that some of her rivals lacked.

She now needs to capitalize on her debate performance and broaden her appeal and name recognition among the voters outside of Minnesota. It will be a long road to the White House, where pitfalls must be avoided and opportunities must be seized. Her stellar performance at the debate will be an advantage and a disadvantage to her in the upcoming primary season.

Advantages

Iowa

Although a Congresswoman from Minnesota, Bachmann was born in neighboring Iowa, home of the first caucuses. According to the Associated Press, Bachmann has broad appeal to both fiscal and social conservatives as well as evangelicals, who make up the majority of Republican voters in the Iowa caucuses. She has made numerous trips to Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina in a bid to round up support in the early voting states. Mitt Romney avoiding the straw poll in Ames adds to her advantage in Iowa.

Her family story

Bachmann has a compelling family story that resonates with voters. Her parents divorced when she was young and she was raised by a single mother. She has since been married to her husband Marcus for over 30 years. They have five children of their own and have opened their home to be the foster parents to 23 other children. Because of this, she has earned bipartisan praise in Congress for being one of the leading advocates for adopted and foster children.

Engaging, confident, and well-informed

Bachmann is an engaging, confident public speaker with an excellent command of the facts. Monday night's debate only added to her appeal, showing her "as a competent, knowledgeable insider who would nonetheless carry on the fight against big government with the zeal of a Tea Party activist," reports the New York Times. According to Andrew Hemingway, president of the New Hampshire Republican Liberty Caucus, "In her demeanor, in the way that she carried herself -- she walked out of that debate where everybody said, 'She is a very serious candidate.'" Overall, she projected confidence, and voters want to elect a confident leader.

Disadvantages

Media coverage

The media are beginning to take her candidacy seriously. While prone to the occasional gaffe, and what politician isn't, some of the more liberal members of the media will use that to discredit her. In the aftermath of Monday's debate, some writers have dropped coverage of Sarah Palin and switched to Bachmann. While compliments were forth coming, some were of the back-handed variety, such as "she was at ease and forceful without looking crazy or out-of-control" from E.J. Dionne at the Washington Post.

President Obama's main strength in the 2008 campaign was controlling the media message. Bachman will need to do the same to avoid the Sarah Palin "I can see Russia from my house" quotes.

Political experience

Bachmann is light on political experience at the national level, having served in the House since 2007. Prior to that, she served in the Minnesota State Senate for six years, diving into the race in a fight over school standards. Before entering politics, she spent five years as a federal tax litigation attorney, working on civil and criminal cases. Her litigation experience shaped her support for simplifying the tax code and reducing the tax burden for families and small businesses.

Campaign infrastructure

Bachmann is a proficient fundraiser, collecting over $13 million for her last House campaign. Unfortunately for her, that does not translate into the organization and infrastructure to run a national campaign. She has been gathering the support of up-and-comers in the GOP, tapping Iowa State Sen. Kent Sorenson to run her Iowa campaign. Ed Rollins, Mike Huckabee's 2008 national campaign director and the orchestrator of Ronald Reagan's landslide win in 1984, has signed on to be Bachmann's campaign director, according to CBS News. Rollins also brought in Brett O'Donnell, adviser to George W. Bush and John McCain, considered the best debate coach in politics.

View the original article here

New Hampshire GOP Debate: The End of the Two Party System? (ContributorNetwork)

COMMENTARY | The political system in America is often defended by the establishment organizations of the parties, the corporations, the media, and the political action organizations such as unions and special interest groups and lobbies. Much of the defense is centered on the idea that there are two America's and two completely different ideas about how we are to be governed.

Moreover, many high-minded educational institutions proclaim this is good for the parties, good for America and good for Americans. As the Brookings Institute writes: "Because both parties are more cohesive, they are also more disciplined. If you are a member of Congress and you basically agree with your party's position on most salient issues, why defect to the other side on key votes?"

We saw that discipline Monday night on stage. Even when prodded by John King of CNN, Tim Pawlenty would not succumb to the temptation to disparage fellow contender, Mitt Romney, on his state health care plan. However, it is a false discipline. The assertion of the defense of partisanship is that the philosophy of the people within the leadership of each party is cohesive and that it is only in application that we they have differences. However, the candidates in this field are greatly divided not only in application, but most definitely in philosophy.

In this field, the Republicans have a candidate seeking complete laissez faire philosophy, calling for an end to the Federal Reserve and a fundamental transformation of our foreign policy. They also have, at the other end of the spectrum, a candidate who is a social, military and economic statist who believes the president and the executive branch can solve every problem this country currently faces while defining, prescribing, and enforcing the social behavior of every citizen. The other candidates' philosophies reside somewhere in between. Yet, these philosophies were barely revealed and were hardly debated.

Accepted is the assertion that partisanship and branding are here to stay. What is not accepted is that there should only be two distinct party brands or even philosophies. Also, not accepted is that the American people only wish to choose between those two brands. If it is true, then it is the only product in any free marketplace in which people only want a choice between two. That would be a truly unique case. There are at least three and possibly four.

Furthermore, it is not healthy for a political system to be driven to a false dual partisanship that does not reveal the true governing philosophies of the people seeking office. The GOP debate in New Hampshire increased the likelihood of a meaningful future third political party in America -- likely taking shape in the 2014 midterm congressional and state races. The people of America are center-right. Provided the remaining debates and primary elections go according to this script, the Republicans will likely put a liberal Republican on the ticket.

This will ensure President Barack Obama winds a second term and will solidify the desire of the American people to form a third party. The three parties' philosophies are likely to be defined as economic statists (Democrats), social statists (Republicans), and constitutional libertarians (Constitution/Libertarians). A fourth party could form which are the social and economic statists, though it is likely to have the least representation.

Perhaps it is soon time that the American people will demand philosophy of governance be on the ballot in plain view for a transparent choice fully accountable to the consequences of the governance. Without the system of false dichotomies, every election season, the people of this republic will have truly disciplined parties holding to their brands which can then debate amongst themselves the practical application of the philosophy. Perhaps this decade will see the American people begin to live up to the expectations of our founding fathers.

View the original article here

The GOP Debate Surprise: Michele Bachmann Steals the Show (Time.com)

Rep. Michele Bachmann used Monday night's CNN/WMUR's debate between GOP presidential hopefuls as an unconventional venue to make it official: She's running for President.

"I just want to make an announcement here for you, John, on CNN tonight," Bachmann told the debate's moderator, John King. "I filed today my paperwork to seek the office of the presidency of the United States today, and I'll very soon be making my formal announcement. So I wanted you to be the first to know."

Her statement was followed, minutes later, by an e-mailed press release, making it official that Bachmann will not seek reelection to Congress and instead aspires to the highest office in the land. "Our country needs a leader who understands the hardships that people across America have been facing over the past few years, and who will do what it takes to renew the American dream. We must become a strong and proud America again, and I see clearly a better path to a brighter future," she said in the statement. "For these reasons, earlier this evening I instructed my team to file the necessary paperwork to allow me to seek the office of President of the United States."

(What you missed if you did not watch the debate)

Bachmann had pledged to make her decision in Iowa - and her formal announcement will likely still be there - but in doing it at the debate, Bachmann captured headlines and buzz. In many ways, the Minnesota congresswoman stole the show. As the only woman on the same New Hampshire stage where in 2008 then Senator Barack Obama quipped condescendingly to Hillary Clinton, "you're likeable enough," Bachmann out-charmed her male rivals. She slapped Newt Gingrich on the wrist playfully when he said he preferred American Idol over Dancing with the Stars (a subtle dig at Sarah Palin?) with a cackling laugh that sounded eerily like Clinton's. She gushed when asked to choose between Elvis and Johnny Cash, and finally said "both." And she underlined her biography, mentioning her 30+ year marriage, five biological children and 23 foster kids three times.

She smartly threw Obama's words back at him on the debt ceiling, saying someone "far more eloquent than I" had once made the case to vote against it. Obama voted against raising the debt ceiling as a senator in 2006 - a vote he says he now regrets. She spoke convincingly of her impassioned pleas to the House GOP conference and then-Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson to block TARP in 2008. She spoke forcefully of her pro-life bonafides. And she showed surprising foreign policy chops as the newest member of the House Intelligence Committee in articulating her opposition to U.S. action in Libya. "That sound you hear is millions of jaws hitting the ground by Bachmann's stellar answer on Libya," tweeted RedState.Com's Erick Erickson. "She just did very well with that." Less than an hour into the debate, "Bachman" (sic) was trending on twitter.

(More on TIME.com: In GOP New Hampshire Debate, Bachmann Provides Fireworks as Romney Escapes Unscathed)

Bachmann benefitted from low expectations. "She was as good in this debate as she was awful in her alternative response to the State of the Union address," said Larry Sabato, a presidential scholar at the University of Virginia. I can see why she might do better than expected in Iowa and beyond." And she showed that she is, actually, quite media savvy. She didn't make the announcement in her opening remarks, as that was precious time she could use on her biography, instead waiting for her first question on proposed repeal of financialregulation to do it. She was poised and relaxed. She even impressed Democrats. "[Former Massachusetts Governor and the presumed front runner Mitt] Romney's polish was perhaps to be expected," tweeted Washington Post liberal blogger Ezra Klein. "But Bachmann is much newer to politics than much of the field. Her ease is impressive."

Bachmann used the debate often to speak directly to the audience at home. She was one of the few candidates who looked at the camera, often addressing it rather than audience in front of her. And her first headline announcement wasn't her only proclamation of the night. "I want to make a promise to everyone watching tonight," she said, underlining that she was the first member to introduce a bill to repeal Obamacare. "As President of the United States, I will not rest until I repeal "Obamacare." It's a promise. Take it to the bank; cash the check. I'll make sure that that happens."

(Why Pawlenty's poor showing is a serious liability)

And on answering a question about the Tea Party, she added a direct plea to all Republicans: "We need every one of us in the three-legged stool. We need the peace through strength Republicans; we need the fiscal conservatives; we need the social conservatives. We need everybody to come together, because we're going to win. Just make no mistake about it. I want to announce tonight, President Obama is a one-term president!" she yelled over cheers and applause. "We'll win!"

A strong Bachmann candidacy could spell trouble for former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, who is betting on Iowa. Bachmann, with her 23 foster kids, has a natural appeal to the Hawkeye State's powerful home schooler and evangelical voting blocs. Her ascendancy also spell trouble for Sarah Palin, if the former Alaska governor and vice presidential nominee is indeed thinking of running. The two women would compete to appeal to similar voters and donors.

The firebrand Bachmann - who once labeled Americorps a dangerous example of big government expansion rather than a volunteer program, accused Obama of spending $200 million on his trip to India by bringing 2,000 staff and 34 warships with him - a charge the Pentagon labeled "comical," and accused the U.S. Census Bureau of spying on Americans by asking for too much information - was toned down tonight. The only hint at her Tea Party roots came when she called for the abolition of the Environmental Protection Agency, which she said should be renamed "the job-killing organization of America."

Of course, Bachmann remains relatively untested. "Media is going to hunt down and check out all 23 foster kids if she wins Iowa," tweeted GOP strategist Mike Murphy. She is just entering her third term and with only five years in Congress, she can't employ the familiar GOP criticism of President Obama that he is too green and unqualified for the job.

(See the top 10 debate flubs of all time)

There is also some question about her staying power. Though she started off the strongest, she faltered towards the end. "As a second tier candidate, she punched through and surprised everyone with a good first performance," says GOP strategist Ron Bonjean. "However, she gave a confusing answer over the role of the federal government and the rights of the states over gay marriage." Bachmann said she supports both the right of states to make up their own mind on gay marriage and that marriage should be defined as only between a man and a woman federally - contradictory positions. She also fumbled a question about whether or not Don't Ask Don't Tell should be reinstated, saying it should be up to the "commanders in chief."

But Monday night was still a net positive for the Minnesota congresswoman, a well-used opportunity to raise her profile and make the big announcement.

View this article on Time.com

Most Popular on Time.com:

View the original article here

Candidates, Pundits Make Surprising Remarks at GOP Debate (ContributorNetwork)

The second Republican debate of the 2012 presidential election is being hailed as a successful discussion between seven of the GOP hopefuls. The biggest story of the evening is the amount of civility that the candidates showed toward one another. Instead of arguing amongst themselves, they opted to attack the policies of President Obama, with few exceptions. There were, of course, some interesting comments made by the debaters, as well as some colorful comments made by the nation's pundits.

"I filed today my paperwork to seek the office of the presidency of the United States today. And I'll very soon be making my formal announcement" - Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.)

Bachmann made a somewhat anti-climactic announcement at the debate Monday when she revealed that she was running for president, reports CNN. The statement may have come as a surprise to some viewers, who assumed that everyone on stage was, indeed, running for the office of president.

"And I would not be comfortable because you have peaceful Muslims and then you have militant Muslims, those that are trying to kill us." - Herman Cain

Businessman and GOP contender Cain responded to moderator John King's question regarding whether or not he would allow a Muslim to serve in his administration. He then attempted to clarify whether or not he would subject Muslim candidates to a sort of loyalty test, or an interview proving their allegiance to the country.

"I think Governor Palin is a remarkable leader. I think she's qualified to be president of the United States." -Tim Pawlenty

King asked candidates who they felt made the best choice for a vice presidential pick, John McCain or Obama. Pawlenty's answer is interesting, as many believe that Palin is embarking on her own campaign for president despite her absence at the debate.

Though the candidates had most of the memorable quotes of the evening, several pundits weighed in with their feelings on not only the candidates, but the debate's format itself.

"Bad night for Sarah Palin...Michele Bachmann enhanced herself and took up a lot of space that Sarah Palin would have otherwise taken up." -George Stephanopoolos

On "The O'Reilly Factor," Stephanolpoulos summed up the effect that Bachman's presence at the debate had on any potential Sarah Palin candidacy.

"If Obama had been there, Would John King have said, 'Lobster or Kobe Beef? Dom Perignon or Crystal? Bill Ayers or Reverend Wright? Secured Borders or Murders, Rapers, and Kidnappers?' What's your choice Mr. President?" -Rush Limbaugh

On his radio talk show, Limbaugh criticized King and CNN's platform, which posed questions to candidates asking them to choose between things like Pepsi or Coke and deep dish or thin crust pizza, according to Mediaite. Limbaugh was not the only pundit to voice criticism of this portion of the debate.

"I was confused by the debate- couldn't tell if it was Twitter, Facebook, or U-Haul, who was asking the questions?" -Bill O'Reilly

Reflecting many people's feelings about the overwhelming, multi-media aspect of the debate, O'Reilly expressed frustration over where the questions were actually coming from during his show.

At the end of the evening, Pawlenty had perhaps the most memorable parting words of the debate.

"I learned that if you trust the people, our future is bright and I learned that the Boston Bruins have more heart than the Vancouver Canucks."

Pawlenty's closing remarks gave a nod to game six of the Stanley Cup Playoffs, with the Boston Bruins winning over the Vancouver Canucks, forcing a game seven in the series. Fellow debater Mitt Romney kept the candidates updated on the status of the game during the debate.

Though the debate was rather uneventful with regards to Republican in-fighting, it was an informative introduction to some of the lesser-known candidates like Cain and Rick Santorum, and it also gave Romney and Bachman the opportunity to demonstrate their abilities to look presidential while discussing the nation's most divisive topics. It will be interesting to see if future debates remain as civil as this one.

Sources:

CNN Republican Debate Transcript

John Bershad " Rush Limbaugh Critiques the Republican Debate (Especially John King) " Mediaite

The O'Reilly Factor

View the original article here

Romney, Bachmann in Republican debate spotlight (Reuters)

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Republicans Mitt Romney and Michelle Bachmann will be in the spotlight next week as the party's slow-forming presidential nominating race enters a new phase with its first major debate.

Nearly eight months before the first contest, Monday's nationally televised forum will give voters a chance to form early impressions of most of the top-tier contenders for the right to challenge President Barack Obama in 2012.

Seven White House hopefuls will participate, including three prominent candidates who skipped an early debate last month -- Romney, Bachmann and Newt Gingrich, who promises to be there despite Thursday's mass resignation of his senior staff.

The debate gives Romney, the marginal front-runner in an unfinished field, and Bachmann, an outspoken conservative who has not formally declared her candidacy yet, their first opportunity to test campaign themes on a national audience.

"It's a turning point. Up to now the only people paying attention have been activists and the media, and with this debate you get regular people starting to tune in and make first impressions," said Fergus Cullen, the former chairman of the New Hampshire Republican Party.

Four others who participated in a low-attendance first debate -- former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, U.S. Representative Ron Paul, former pizza executive Herman Cain and former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum -- also will be at the Manchester, New Hampshire, debate.

Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, leads the Republican pack in most polls and his formidable fundraising has made him the uneasy front-runner. But the real competition at the debate could be among the other candidates, who will be vying to lead the party's anti-Romney wing.

"Who will emerge as the main alternative to Romney?" said Dante Scala, a political scientist at the University of New Hampshire.

"Will there be one of them who gives a performance that distinguishes them from the rest of the field?" he said.

AN OPPORTUNITY FOR BACHMANN

Bachmann could be a natural for the role. Her fiery attacks on Obama, Washington insiders and even her own party's leaders have made her a hit with cable news and conservative Tea Party activists.

She clearly stands out as the only woman in the field, but many Republicans have questioned whether she can form a credible national campaign.

Gingrich, former speaker of the House of Representatives, also faces skepticism about his future after staff desertions and a disastrous campaign launch that included an apology for criticizing Republican Representative Paul Ryan's budget plan.

Widespread dissatisfaction with the current field has led some Republicans to urge other big names to get into the race. Sarah Palin, the 2008 vice presidential nominee, and Texas Governor Rick Perry are among those still considering it.

Many party stalwarts already decided not to challenge Obama next year, when the White House's ability to control the campaign debate and raise more than $750 million in cash would make it a very difficult race.

The debate in New Hampshire, which holds the second nominating contest and could play a crucial role in the 2012 Republican nominating fight, will give candidates a chance to appeal directly to the state's influential activists.

Romney said on Thursday he will not participate in the Iowa straw poll in August, a key early test of organization strength in the state that kicks off the race. He is focusing his strategy on a win in New Hampshire.

Former U.S. Ambassador to China Jon Huntsman, another likely candidate who is expected to formally declare his candidacy soon, also has said he will largely skip Iowa to focus on New Hampshire and other states.

But Huntsman's decision to skip Monday's debate -- his campaign says he will not appear in debates until he officially enters the race -- has raised questions in New Hampshire.

"It's a missed opportunity, and it has people scratching their heads here," Cullen said. "Certainly everyone expects he will run, so why not do it? The upside outweighs any downside for him."

(Editing by Eric Beech)

View the original article here

GOP field anything but steady as NH debate nears (AP)

WASHINGTON – Newt Gingrich's campaign defections are just the latest tremor in a constantly shifting GOP presidential landscape that craves some steadiness as a big, early New Hampshire debate nears.

Rivals already were trying to poach Gingrich's donors and top supporters Friday, even as the former House speaker said he would keep campaigning despite the resignations of his top advisers and entire Iowa paid staff. Party insiders eyed the likely entry of Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota and a possible bid by Texas Gov. Rick Perry.

Mitt Romney's decision to skip the Iowa straw poll in August, meanwhile, reinforced his image as a front-runner willing to pick his shots. And potential candidate Sarah Palin again lent a circus atmosphere to the entire GOP family — this time indirectly — when Alaska released thousands of pages of emails from her days as governor.

In short, it was a typical week in the GOP's free-wheeling nominating process. The field is anything but set, and there's no clear picture of who will emerge to challenge President Barack Obama in 2012.

Gingrich spoke publicly Friday for the first time after the mass resignation of his top aides. Several of them said they were frustrated because he was devoting insufficient time to the nitty-gritty work of meeting and galvanizing supporters in early voting states such as Iowa.

Gingrich told reporters outside his suburban Virginia home that he was committed to campaigning "very intensely" for the White House. He attributed his aides' departure to disagreements about strategy.

"There is a fundamental strategic difference between the traditional consulting community and the kind of campaign I want to run," he said. "We'll find out over the next year who's right."

Gingrich received a vote of confidence from at least one high-profile backer: Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal, his campaign chairman in his old home state. "When the going gets rough, I don't cut and run on my friends," Deal said.

That comment took only a little of the sting from his predecessor's jump from Gingrich's campaign to that of former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty. Sonny Perdue had been a national co-chairman for the Gingrich campaign.

Pawlenty also picked up support Friday from Al Hubbard, who directed the National Economic Council under President George W. Bush.

Republicans hoped the campaign focus might shift toward policy and what they consider Obama's shortcomings on Monday, when seven candidates plan to debate in Manchester, N.H.

Joining Romney, Pawlenty, Gingrich and Bachmann will be Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, former pizza company executive Herman Cain, and former Sen. Rick Santorum, who unveiled a 60-second radio ad Friday criticizing the federal deficit.

Notably absent will be former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman, who has been campaigning unofficially for several weeks, mostly in New Hampshire. Huntsman recently said he will join debates if he officially enters the race.

Meanwhile, he told reporters in New Hampshire, "we're here in people's homes, we're open to all of you, we're open to citizens that drop by and talk to us and ask whatever question they want."

Skipping the debate poses some risk for Huntsman, who recently stepped down as U.S. ambassador to China. He is virtually ignoring Iowa and needs to do well in New Hampshire if he runs, strategists say. But skipping the debate gives Huntsman more time to sharpen his responses to those who criticize his role in Obama's administration and portions of his record as governor.

In Iowa, party insiders were not surprised by Romney's decision to skip the well-known Ames straw poll. But it will have ramifications nonetheless.

Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, spent more than $1 million to win the straw poll four years ago. But he won neither the Iowa caucus nor the presidential nomination, and this time he is placing less emphasis on the Hawkeye state.

The straw poll "is an opportunity for underdogs," said veteran GOP strategist Charlie Black, and "a trap for front-runners."

Another party strategist, Virginia-based Mike McKenna, said the modest interest that Romney, Huntsman and Gingrich are showing in Iowa "is testament to the amount of juice that Michele Bachmann has there." Bachmann, a tea party favorite, appeals strongly to social conservatives who turn out heavily for the GOP caucus.

Long before Romney announced he was skipping the Iowa Republican Party straw poll, Pawlenty was planning a major investment in the event, which is a state GOP fundraiser. Pawlenty has hired Romney's 2007 straw poll coordinator and is reserving buses to ferry supporters to Iowa State University for the daylong event.

With Romney out of the Ames poll, and Gingrich not expected to participate, Pawlenty would have high expectations to win. But the payoff might be minimal without top-tier candidates to defeat, said Will Rogers, Gingrich's Iowa political director until he resigned last month.

"It's all on him to do well, but he doesn't have the opportunity to beat someone big," Rogers said.

Pawlenty spokesman Alex Conant said the presidential field "is still coming together," and it's "premature to start weighing expectations" for a summer straw poll.

___

Associated Press writers Tom Beaumont in Des Moines, Brian Bakst in St. Paul and Shannon McCaffrey in Atlanta contributed to this report.

View the original article here