Live Blogging the Iowa Republican Presidential Debate
By Ken Falkenstein | Saturday, December 10th, 2011 | Politics
Tonight’s debate takes place in Iowa 3 weeks before the Iowa Caucuses start the election season. The moderators are former Clinton propagandist George Stephanopoulos and Diane Sawyer.
The candidates in tonight’s debate are current frontrunner Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, Rick Perry, Michelle Bachmann, and Rick Santorum. Jon Huntsman did not qualify (and I’ve been wondering exactly what his qualifications were to participate in the other debates considering that he’s never garnered enough support in any poll to break out of the margin of error from zero).
Keep checking back here for live blogging once the debate begins at 9:00.
9:05: Gingrich invokes Reagan in the first sentence of the debate. Smart move given that he and Reagan are the two transformative Republican figures of the last half century.
9:07: Romney’s 7-point economic agenda is good, but too many points for easy consumption. He should reduce it to 3 broad points.
9:09: Perry advocates 20% flat tax. In this first round, he’s speaking more clearly and with more confidence than at previous debates.
9:11: Santorum starts by addressing Iowa’s economy specifically and segues into national economic policy. Very smart.
9:13: Santorum shoots down Diane Sawyer’s idiotic premise that candidates can promise to create a certain number of jobs, as if government creates jobs. Santorum wins Round 1.
9:17: Romney comes across as stiff and programmed. His support for continuing the payroll tax cut comes across as wanting to avoid a political issue. Santorum comes across as more genuine and takes a principled stand against continuing the payroll tax cut.
9:19: Stephanopoulos tries to goad Romney into attacking Gingrich. Romney declines and goes after Obama instead. When asked to distinguish himself from Gingrich, he stumbles and then mentions mining lunar rocks and putting kids to work in schools. Romney clearly is not comfortable directly engaging Gingrich. Gingrich’s retort that Romney would have been a career politician if he hadn’t lost to Ted Kennedy was a direct hit.
9:24: Gingrich comes back strong against Romney. Makes me salivate at the idea of Gingrich debating Obama.
9:25: Did Romney really just say that his best qualification for president was losing to Ted Kennedy?
9:26: Ron Paul has good line in saying that no one can beat him at consistency.
9:28: Gingrich lectures Ron Paul on the merits of the private sector and on economics. That takes guts.
9:29: Bachmann draws distinction with “Newt Romney.” Smart move, but probably won’t work.
9:32: Romney claims that he would have advised Obama against the individual mandate. But given that he imposed an individual mandate on the people of Massachusetts, why should we believe him? Perry immediately makes this point.
9:34: Perry’s not getting a lot of time in this debate, but so far he’s making good use of it and presenting much better than he has previously.
9:35: Romney defends RomneyCare on Tenth Amendment grounds and doubles down on it as good policy.
9:36: Perry claims that Romney wrote in his book that RomneyCare should be national model. Romney denies it and offers to bet Perry $10,000 on whether he wrote that. Perry backs down. Well played, Mitt.
9:39: Santorum claims to have been consistent in espousing ideas that were originated by Newt but later abandoned by him. Interesting point. Santorum continues to do well in this debate.
9:41: Santorum and Bachmann engage in 2-person debate, and America waits for the debate to get back to the viable candidates….
9:49: George Stephanopoulos just suggested to these Republican candidates that a candidate who cheats on his wife cannot be trusted to be faithful to the American people. None of the candidates had the courage to point out that Stephanopoulos was an apologist for Bill Clinton when he was impeached for committing perjury after he cheated on his wife.
9:53: None of the candidates take the bait to go after Gingrich for his extramarital affairs, but Gingrich addresses it head on and invites the voters to hold him accountable for his past transgressions. Smart and appropriate way to handle the matter.
9:56: Gingrich couches his support for Citizen Review Boards to grant residency to certain long-standing illegal aliens with his support for other very tough measures against most illegal aliens.
9:59: Romney opposes any provision to allow any illegal aliens to stay under any circumstances. Gingrich’s position seems more practical and more consistent with American compassion.
10:01: Perry calls for simply enforcing the immigration laws that are already on the books, but he’s not specific about which laws that are already on the books would be the solution if properly enforced.
10:03: Stephanopoulos asks the candidates if they “agree” with Gingrich’s description of the Palestinians as an “invented people” – as if it’s a matter of opinion. Gingrich was objectively correct as a matter of indisputable historical fact, and he says so. Gingrich goes on to call out the Palestinians for their support for terrorism and historical revisionism, which is the applause line of the night. Romney sides with the historical revisionists.
10:06: Gingrich responds to Romney by giving even more historical details. Gingrich is speaking truth to power, and he is right.
10:07: Romney continues to characterize Gingrich’s statements of historical facts as a “position” that a president ought not to take. I guess if Arab terrorists claimed that the sky is red, Romney would avoid stating that the sky is actually blue for fearing of offending them. Gingrich stands firm and says he will continue to state the truth.
10:11: Diane Sawyer laughs condescendingly at Bachmann, which is consistent with the way conservative women are treated by the establishment “news” media.
10:13: Perry gives rambling response but ends up making the point that Obama is the problem in the Middle East and not Gingrich.
10:22: In response to question about the candidates’ experiences having to give up necessities due to financial hardship, Romney states bluntly that he didn’t grow up poor and that it doesn’t change his qualifications to help improve the economy. Good answer.
10:24: Santorum states that he had what he really needed: a mother and a father. Good answer and good segue into his signature issue, promotion of family values.
10:29: ABC News is doing real-time polling and asking questions based on those results. Interesting approach to debate questioning.
10:29: Romney was asked a specific question: Do you believe the RomneyCare mandate is a good model for most states as you said in 2007? He once again dodges the question and says that states can do what they want. The question was asked because viewers want that question answered, and Romney didn’t do himself any favors by not respecting them enough to answer it.
10:32: Paul gets huge applause when he says that government should not seek to protect people from themselves. He’s right. I wish policymakers were listening.
10:34: Perry is not very articulate, but when he talks about cutting and reforming the federal government, he comes across as sincere and believable.
10:41: Santorum’s recitation of his first congressional race was nicely done, and again, a good use of an opportunity to take a respectful jab at Gingrich for not remaining consistent on some of the ideas that he espoused back in his GOPAC days.
10:44: Perry and Romney astutely compliment Paul because it’s safe to do so because they know that Paul has no chance of winning but they want his supporters to support them if they win the nomination.
10:45: Gingrich is effusive in his praise for other candidates and comes across as sincere because he’s been complimentary of his opponents throughout the race.
10:46: Paul’s only compliment for his opponents was that they complimented him. Not very classy.
10:47: Is Bachmann capable of giving an answer that’s not a bumper sticker slogan?
10:49: Reverse mortgage commercial featuring Fred Thompson. I wonder if the debates in 2015-16 will have commercials featuring Rick Perry….
10:51: ABC declares Newt Gingrich the winner, then engages in class warfare against Romney by pointing out that most Iowans couldn’t afford to make a $10,000 bet.
My assessment:
Newt Gingrich – Won the debate by appearing strong and principled and by addressing his opponents’ attacks calmly, substantively, and with class. He also benefits from a subpar performance by Romney.
Mitt Romney – Came across as stiff and programmed and a bit defensive. Probably his weakest performance of the year at the time it mattered the most.
Ron Paul – Same ol’ Ron Paul. His supporters will love what they heard, and everyone else will continue to disregard him.
Rick Perry – Probably his best performance, but that’s not saying much. He comes across as a sincere conservative, but he still rambled too much and did not inspire confidence in him as a candidate to go up against Obama. Given the major investment he’s made in Iowa, he might exceed expectations, but it’s still doubtful he’ll break into the top 3, and he has no path to victory after Iowa.
Michelle Bachmann – She actually did pretty well in distinguishing herself from “Newt Romney” as the “real” consistent conservative, but it’s too late. She’s not going to get the second look that she’s seeking, and poor showings in Iowa and New Hampshire will end her candidacy.
Rick Santorum – He did very well in this debate. If Newt makes a major stumble, Santorum just might have positioned himself to get a solid look from the 3/4 of Republican voters who are looking for an alternative to Romney. But Newt is not likely to stumble and give Santorum that opening. If Santorum had performed this well earlier on, he might be where Newt is now.
Bottom line: Newt solidified his frontrunner status, and the race is now his to lose.
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
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 the Vice President of the Down Syndrome Association of Hampton Roads and practices as a civil litigation attorney with the law firm of Poole Mahoney PC in Virginia Beach. His concern for his kids' future is what most informs his writing.
Comments
38 Responses to "Live Blogging the Iowa Republican Presidential Debate"
they are all favorable ken
Paul – Bachmann 2012
So you’re in favor of re-electing Obama then?
I’m in favor of constitutional conservatism and limited government.
Me too, and I’m in favor of nominating candidates who can win and work toward those objectives.
Is Newt that “Generic Republican” who can beat Obama?
Your assessment is obviously from the establishment angle.
As usual, ABC tried to exclude Ron Paul as much as possible.
And unless you know the election is rigged how can you say Ron Paul does not stand a chance and it was safe to put praise on him. He is the one honest candidate with a sincere commitment to liberty for all Americans.While the rest of them are busily kissing up to the Jewish money Ron Paul is standing for the constitution and non intervention.
He is the true front runner though the media lies and probably are aware that the fix is in. It will be business as usual if the Media have their way. Gingrich is the lowest of the low but a slick snake oil salesman.
Jean- I would not expect you to agree with my analysis given that I’m one of those evil Jews.
Tim- Newt would not have been my first choice to be our nominee (I favored Mitch Daniels), but right now he is making a pretty good case that he is the best candidate among those who are running. I have not committed to any candidate yet, but I’m not a fan of Mitt Romney, and I’m becoming more and more comfortable with Newt. (These opinions are my own and do not reflect any official position of Bearing Drift.)
Newt had everthing to win, and everyting to lose, tonight. Newt wins hands down tonight.
I didn’t see this debate as I was working.
If Newt wins the primary he won’t be the first Presidential candidate who has dirty laundry but he will be the first that’s admitted it and asked for forgiveness and to be held accountable openly. If he wins, I just hope the rest of the American people can see him as a viable President who will do better than Obama has done. If not, we are done.
Actually, my take on this debate is that George and Diane had very little to do with the way it turned out. They were all given plenty of rope. Frankly, they all did well.
I can’t believe that folks are actually being taken in by Gingrich. He is not Ben sincere. He is calculating. He is in the lead, thus he can afford to be magnanimous to the other candidates. For the folks with policy concerns about Romney, it boggles my mind that those folks are flocking to Gingrich, considering the pair are the most ideologically similar. The difference is that Romney doesn’t turn off independents. Gingrich does.
Brian, Newt has been magnanimous all along. He rebuked the media trying to protect Obama by baiting Republicans into bashing each other, and Newt has consistently said any of the Republican candidates would be a huge improvement over Barack Obama.
Sounds like you’re saying “I can’t believe you are getting taken in by Reagan. He was a Democrat for crying out loud. Now he’s Mr. Conservative? Independents don’t like Reagan. We need to stick with Ford and Bush.”
Gingrich is one of two people in the past half-century who actually IMPLEMENTED transformative conservative change in the federal government (the other being Reagan, of course), so he’s got a good track record of both holding to conservative principles in office and being proactive and bold in applying them. Those are the qualities that we need to repair the damage done by Obama and the decades of leftist Democrats (and some Republicans) who came before him as president and in Congress. I suppose you would have been giving the same kinds of warnings about Reagan in 1980, but 4 years of a Jimmy Carter made American ready for a President Reagan. Likewise, 4 years of Barack Obama likely has America ready for a President Gingrich.
All of that said, I agree that Gingrich has a history of being undisciplined and of letting his ego get in the way of good effective leadership. Those are the reasons I haven’t committed to him yet. But so far he’s showing good discipline in this campaign, and since he and Romney are the only viable candidates left, I hope Newt’s personal evolution is real.
How refreshing it would be to win an election with a conservative nominee who earns a mandate by running on conservative principles. After 32 years, we’re due.
Newt wasn’t doing that to be magnanimous. He was doing it because it enabled him to do what any underdog wants to do – score points without the possibility of being harmed by it. Attacking the media in a room full of Republicans is about as risky a political move as handing out free money on the street.
Gingrich is no Reagan. That is the point. This is a primary and in terms of policy, these guys are all remarkably similar. Character is the big cleaving line. Reagan had an impeccable character. Gingrich doesn’t. Some of the other candidates up there do. And for independents, character matters as much, if not more, than policy positions.
Ken, again, I don’t understand your apotheosis of President Reagan – I like him too, but he wasn’t the second coming of Barry Goldwater, at least not in his implemented policies. Government continued to grow, the deficit increased, etc. Gingrich can take credit for cutting the deficit, but as I have said in my criticism of President Clinton, the deficit was cut primarily thanks to the dot.com boom, rather than any active actions on the part if government.
Again, I’m simply surprised that so many people who claim to espouse small government conservatism are out there promoting Newt as some kind of a small government conservative. He isn’t. Not even close.
Gingrich’s character simply makes him unfit to lead. I don’t see the point in continuing the pipe dream that he has any chance to win the White House.
Brian, you said Newt was being magnanimous AND was not being magnanimous.
Which is it?
I said he was being magnanimous last night, because he could afford to be. I don’t believe he was being so in the past, because I believe he had ulterior motives. Last night is the first time I felt like he was being nice to the other candidates simply to be nice, rather than to primarily get a benefit from it.
So, Newt does something consistently throughout the campaign, and you manage to turn it into a flip-flop?
What can I say – I’ve been in Washington a long time and there are plenty of folks in town who are exactly like Gingrich. It’s one of the reasons why I have a love/hate relationship with this town. And it’s also why I don’t trust him, and that’s why I have a hard time accepting anything he does isn’t an attempt at triangulation. Even his answer about forgiveness was designed as a slap at Perry and a way to deflect legitimate criticism.
He seemed genuinely willing to be polite last night and I think that was simply because he’s in the lead.
Yes, they are all remarkably the same in their total focus on a small segment of the voters who actually believe our nation is only Christian, that tax cuts solve every problem from body odor to the reform of the nation’s fiscal crisis, that believe we will build an empire and remain as the world’s policeman, and who believe that support of those less fortunate than the 1% is highly suspect and therefore not important.
Regretfully, there is not one candidate in this bunch that is Presidential. As a group they are mired in their concept of Reagan, not the practical and pragmatic politician he really was. As a group they are so ideologically driven as to be irrelevant to the current state of affairs.
That said, there remain a remarkable number of Americans who think just like they do; that is the greatest threat to our recovery from the fiscal policies that created this crisis in the first place.
But on the positive side, everyday, more and more americans say they get it; more cuts, tax increases, reform of entitlements, and tax reform. This simple formula, achievable if we had a competent Congress, would lead to a remarkable resurgence of our nation. But none of the six remaining so called candidates would get us where we need to go.
Yes, they are all remarkably the same in their total focus on a small segment of the voters who actually believe our nation is only Christian, that tax cuts solve every problem from body odor to the reform of the nation’s fiscal crisis, that believe we will build an empire and remain as the world’s policeman, and who believe that support of those less fortunate than the 1% is highly suspect and therefore not important.
Regretfully, there is not one candidate in this bunch that is Presidential. As a group they are mired in their concept of Reagan, not the practical and pragmatic politician he really was. As a group they are so ideologically driven as to be irrelevant to the current state of affairs.
That said, there remain a remarkable number of Americans who think just like they do; that is the greatest threat to our recovery from the fiscal policies that created this crisis in the first place.
But on the positive side, everyday, more and more americans say they get it; more cuts, tax increases, reform of entitlements, and tax reform. This simple formula, achievable if we had a competent Congress, would lead to a remarkable resurgence of our nation. But none of the six remaining so called candidates would get us where we need to go.
Bob McDonnell for President 2012
I am firmly convinced that Gingrich is the last person any sensible and logically minded person would consider to lead this country. In his mindless self-serving pandering remarks to a religious/Zionist group he causes a world-wide flurry of discord and intensified polarization. The American people are fed up with the “War on Terrorism” justification for U.S. aggression and occupation in the middle east. Gingrich, with his imbecilic hateful policy statements would perpetuate the U.S. in a state of costly warring of an undefined and “invented” enemy.
Mike, considering that Romney is mormon – a sect that some Christians aren’t even willing to accept as being Christian – I think you’re stretching the comparison there. And, frankly, if you find it distasteful that they engage in religious politics, you’d behoove yourself to refrain from doing the exact same thing.
I think Romney, Huntsman and Santorum are presidential amongst those up there. That’s it.
And if you want to complain about candidates who aren’t willing to embrace your 4 part plan, you might as well add the President in there as well. The cuts, entitlement reform and tax reform are not acceptable to the vast majority of the loose conglomeration of interests that define the modern Democratic party.
Well Brian, that is simply not true. The deal that the President had worked out with Speaker Boehner met the exact definition I have summarized on this forum. Of course, the moment Cantor and the republican study committee got hold of the outline, it was dead on arrival in the House.
Yet that is the solution we must have. To much cutting, and business activity plummets. Too much increased revenue can curtain economic activity as well. Too much moderation of benefits and seniors will revolt. Too much tax reform, and the republican base will revolt.
The problem is that one side won’t support the other without a perceived sacrifice. Democrats won’t accept entitlement reform and more cuts unless republicans accept tax reform and increased revenue. Democrats have accepted a broad strategy of three parts cuts for one part new revenue, but as you know, Grover Norquist will politically execute any republican who breaks ranks and supports added revenue.
Of course, I believe most moderate republicans like Huntsman know this, and would act in a similar manner if elected. That can’t happen because he could not get nominated. So our nation is held hostage by the dictator Norquist and the republican study committee for a year.
Frankly, that is despicable.
Wally- What Gingrich said was objectively and indisputably true, and no one can cite any facts to dispute it. What you describe as “hateful” comments to a “religious/Zionist” group (of which I am a member) were nothing more than statements of fact.
Mike, that deal never made it past the discussion phase and it certainly wasn’t approved by the Democratic leadership, either. The President is well known amongst the members of his party as one of the worst negotiators they have ever had, so nothing in those discussions was anything other than preliminary until the Democratic leadership signed off. And they didn’t, any more than the rest of the Republican caucus did.
I think it’s telling that you went out of your want to disguise tax increases as “increased revenue.” Unfortunately, the two terms aren’t synonyms.
You cannot attack us for being unwilling to move off no tax increases when your own party is unwilling to honestly tackle entitlement reform. We both have our bases to protect, so dispense with the holier than thou attitude.
As an aside, I am getting really tired of the boogeyman politics on both sides of the aisle. Grover Norquist is not some fascist dictator. He is simply a lobbyist who happens to have an effective gimmick. There are plenty of legislators and candidates, including me, who didn’t sign his pledge and wouldn’t sign it. Norquist isn’t the impediment to tax increases you guys desperately want. It’s that the modern Republican party doesn’t believe in them and we use them as an absolute last resort. We haven’t gotten to that point yet – not when there are trillions that can be cut without crippling core functions.
Brian, Trillions can be cut without crippling core functions.. how much the gop members cut before the last debt hike?
Well Brian, you have made my point. When it comes down to it, neither side will commit until sacrifice occurs on both sides, and so far, even republicans have made it clear that even if cuts exceeded increased tax revenue by a factor of 10, they would not approve added taxes.
So let’s be honest; there is no compromise on this issue for republicans. They simply won’t increase taxes, and frankly, most of you are proud of this position, despite the disastrous effects this stance has caused.
Whether this is simply republican dogma, or Norquist’s enforced discipline is really not important. But the fact that Norquist has threatened republicans who even mention tax increases, and has spent money and worked to defeat them and been successful, makes it clear he is a dictator who enforces the dictum that republicans will not support what is necessary for our nation to restore the balance between revenue and expenditures.
Well Mike, you have made my point. When it comes down to it, neither side will commit until sacrifice occurs on both sides, and so far, even Democrats have made it clear that even if there was increased revenue, they would not approve cuts to entitlements.
So let’s be honest; there is no compromise on this issue for Democrats. They simply won’t reform entitlements, and frankly, most of you are proud of this position, despite the disastrous effects this stance has caused.
Whether this is simply Democratic dogma, or AARP/Labor/Moveon’s enforced discipline is really not important. But the fact that AARP/Labor/Moveon has threatened Democrats who even mention entitlement reform, and has spent money and worked to defeat them and been successful, makes it clear they are dictators who enforces the dictum that Democrats will not support what is necessary for our nation to restore the balance between discretionary and mandatory spending.
When you wake up and recognize that both sides can share the blame for the stalemate you’ll be better for it.
Nice try, but of course, what you or I think is not the relevant issue. It is what the voters think, and so far, the onus is on Cantor and the republican study committee.
Mike, Democrats are telling republicans to pick up crap by the clean end.. And republicans are picking it up anyawy. What else do you want? There is no way to rationally compromise with you guys on spending cute is there.
@Ken. I am not Jewish and not part of any Zionist Conspiracy, but you and I are in complete agreement on Newt and what he said. It is historical fact and, in fact, to use that word again, something everybody should be talking about. I notice how some in the media have already twisted his words from “people” to “fiction.”
Ken:
I am not satisfied that Gingrich statements were purely a history lesson addressing the resultant fall of the Ottoman empire. They were purposely spoken to illegitimatize the non-Judean Palestinian residents, which include Christians, and to stereotype them all as terrorists. Gingrich’s inflammatory remarks sparked additional worldwide discord. Evidently, you accept his gloss over of historic rationale, yet the geographical area was already inhabited with non-Judean monolithic Semitic cultures in the pre-Deuteronomic era. I personally prefer a leader who is not intent on throwing kerosine on fires, but that is just my opinion.
“The Prevailing Debate Among Economists and Historians is Whether the World Economy Faces the ‘Great’ Depression of the 1930s or the ‘Long’ Depression of the 1870s”
Barry, “Tiny Timmy”, and the other Democratic morons are so clueless.
I haven’t been paying attention. Is Gary Johnson still running?
Dave- No, he dropped out a week or two ago.
Leave your response
The comments section is for meaningful discussion. Readers are reminded to post comments that are germane to the article and write in a common language that steers clear of personal attacks and/or vulgarities.
Please take a moment to review our comment policy.