Romney Wins Nashua Debate But Remains a Flawed Candidate

I am no fan of Mitt Romney and have been critical of his lack of core convictions.  However, objectively speaking, after watching and live-blogging the entire Nashua, NH debate, I think he was the clear winner tonight.

Some have said that Ron Paul was the winner, and indeed, he performed well.  However, the point of winning an debate is to increase a candidate’s chances of actually winning the election, and Ron Paul has no chance whatsoever of actually winning the GOP nomination.

Some have also argued that Michele Bachmann won.  I don’t see it.  To me she came across as principled but as a sloganeer and not a deep thinker.  I did not think she appeared presidential (especially caked in so much make-up).  As Stu Rothenberg recently wrote, if a House member is going to shoot for the presidency, she needs to come across as much larger than her current position representing a local constituency.  I don’t see that Bachmann succeeded in doing that.

What Romney did right was maintain a steady and unrelenting barrage of criticism at Barack Obama.  Even when Romney was criticized by other candidates (which was rare and only at the instigation of the moderator, John King), he responded to the substance of the criticism and then directed his criticism not at his Republican rival but once again at Obama.  This level of message discipline reflects his many years of experience as a national candidate.

Romney also did a good job of articulating conservative values and principles and sounding like he believed them and had some passion for them.  I’m not certain that he has – or is even capable of having – such passion, but he does at least understand that those are the principles that will get him elected in this election.  My concern is whether he would follow through on them as president against fierce opposition by the Democrats and their news media.  Romney is not known for having consistent core values.

Romney’s weakest point in the debate was when he was confronted with the issue of Romney Care.  He once again refused to admit or understand what a monumental disaster this scheme has been for Massachusetts, and he once again denied in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary that his health care scheme was the basis for ObamaCare.  He argued instead that it was a state program and therefore constitutional.  He’s probably right, but who cares? Flag-burning is also constitutional, but would he use that as a basis to go burn a flag?  Whether constitutional or not, RomneyCare was and is bad policy, and Romney’s failure to acknowledge that fact makes him a deeply flawed candidate for the Republican nomination.

All of that said, Romney’s performance tonight was very shrewd.  He was quick on his feet, gave answers that were more thoughtful and better articulated than the other candidates, and most of all, perpetuated the image that he is the frontrunner by acting as if he was already in a two-man race against Barack Obama.  Round One goes to Romney.

Biggest lost opportunity:  Tim Pawlenty, who failed to go after Romney effectively and passionately when given the opportunity to do so over RomneyCare.  In fact, Pawlenty failed to stand out in any meaningful way and was utterly lost in the crowd.  Tonight illustrated why conservatives have not coalesced around Pawlenty as the conservative alternative to Romney.  The water must be looking warmer every day to Gov. Rick Perry….

Contribute for Conservatism!

About the author

Ken Falkenstein

Ken Falkenstein has been a staffer in the United States Senate and the Virginia House of Delegates. He has managed political campaigns. He was a military intelligence analyst in the U.S. Army in West Germany during the Cold War. He is currently a civil litigation attorney with Poole Mahoney, P.C. in Virginia Beach. But his concern for his kids' future is what most informs his writing.